Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs Prove Successful In South Korea

Posted by Soulskill on from the send-in-the-clones dept.

Rexdude writes "A prized drug-sniffing dog at Incheon Airport in South Korea was cloned four years ago, and now the clones have proven to be much more successful at becoming sniffer dogs themselves compared to regular dogs. Not as controversial as human cloning, but are we going to see genetic copyrights on prized animal breeds in the future?"

125 comments

  1. drug sniffing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Drug sniffing dogs? Neat. Now all we need to do is find something useful for them to do, you know, other than help destroy the lives of kind nonviolent people.

    1. Re:drug sniffing? by Antarius · · Score: 1

      Nah, they only sniff the drugs for leisure - recreational use. They have the Charlie Sheen gene in there somewhere.

    2. Re:drug sniffing? by oztiks · · Score: 0

      What no repet jokes, 6th day violation?

    3. Re:drug sniffing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonviolent? Have you seen what happens when the chips run out? Sheer carnage man...

    4. Re:drug sniffing? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      They have the Charlie Sheen gene in there somewhere.

      So... that guy really does like the bitches...
      I suppose there should be a furry joke tossed in now.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  2. Dogs are old hat! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

    Bees are where it's at

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Dogs are old hat! by fedos · · Score: 1

      Especially since a recent study indicates that drug sniffing dogs are susceptible to the Clever Hans problem.

    2. Re:Dogs are old hat! by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 1

      Since it's Korea, I guess this is attributable to narcotics enforcement officers all being old people.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
  3. Power by Tsingi · · Score: 2

    They should use their powers for good. Give every child a clone of Lassie.

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

      Clone Natalie Portman so every slashdotter can have one!

    2. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that there wouldn't be many left slashdotting afterwards..

    3. Re:Power by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      Depends... is it Natalie as she appeared in V for Vendetta or as she appeared in Black Swan? Just asking...

    4. Re:Power by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      What is it with geeks and the thin 12 year old boy look?

    5. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What is it with fat girls always pretending that hot girls look like 12 year old boys? Nobody is falling for it but you.

      Face it, hot thin girls have the classic feminine hourglass figure. Boobs. (not huge ones, but huge ones are sloppy and unattractive anyway) Pretty faces. Nicely shaped toned asses and legs. 12 year old boys have none of these.

      Now compare a fat girl and a fat guy. Sloppy manboobs? Check and check. Lumpy gender neutral asses? Check and check. In fact, forget the ass, this is true for entire bodies. The main difference is the face and genitalia, otherwise its hard to tell fat male and female bodies apart.

      Thin people are more attractive to the majority of people, and only delusional fat people think otherwise.

    6. Re:Power by wisty · · Score: 0

      >> The main difference is the face and genitalia, otherwise its hard to tell fat male and female bodies apart.

      Unless there's facial hair involved (and even then ..), the faces are similar. It's the hairdo and cheap makeup that make the difference. As for genitalia, if we are talking *massive*, you might need to peel back the apron to see for sure.

    7. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As she appeared in Leon.

      (Just a joke, but posting it anon anyway)

    8. Re:Power by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Clone Natalie Portman so every slashdotter can have one!

      I'd buy one of those.

    9. Re:Power by Tsingi · · Score: 0

      Women go ga-ga over six packs. In order to have a six pack you have to have an absolutely lean body with no fat on it. That and do quite a few situps every day.

      I highly recommend developing one at least once in your life. It's worth the effort, and anyone can do it.

      In any event, I agree. The 12 year old boy comments come from women who think men should love them for their minds. These are the same women who go ga-ga over six packs.

    10. Re:Power by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      I highly recommend developing one at least once in your life. It's worth the effort, and anyone can do it.

      What about those of us with potato-bodies who have the easy weight gain + difficult weight loss combo that women at least act like they have, and seem to be incapable of developing any muscle mass?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Power by Tsingi · · Score: 0

      What about those of us with potato-bodies who have the easy weight gain + difficult weight loss combo that women at least act like they have, and seem to be incapable of developing any muscle mass?

      Maybe you should stop eating at McDonalds. Eating good food is a prerequisite to being healthy.

    12. Re:Power by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I've probably eaten less than one McDonald's meal per year over my lifetime. I rarely eat fast food. I do eat a high proportion of various bachelor foods (TV dinner, ramen noodles, etc) but not much of it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:Power by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      They all like Twiggy - Damn skin and bones are easier to hide (under bed/in closet). Sorry guys but I prefer some cusion for pushing, otherwise you risk bruising your nads.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    14. Re:Power by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      As long as six packs of beer exist, I will never need a six pack on my abdomen to get women. Plus beer tastes better than exercise.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    15. Re:Power by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Androgynous.
      Hourglass.
      Fat.
      What happens when the denial goes away.

      HTH.

    16. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Yes, Natalie Portman has done some David Bowie-ish pictures, and shaved her head for a movie. Is this supposed to be proof of something?

      2) Marilyn Monroe was not fat. Fat girls like to say "Marilyn Monroe wore size 16" because it makes them believe that they have bodies like her, but sizes were different back then. She was a size 8.

      3) Gross, and notice how the hourglass look goes away when waists/guts are so fat.

      4) Gross and stupid. You know you are dealing with an idiot when finding fit adult women attractive gets you branded as a gay pedophile.

      Now go be gross and stupid somewhere else.

    17. Re:Power by brianosaurus · · Score: 1

      Its math. If calories expended are greater than what you eat, you will lose weight. Track your calories and start exercising. I'll accept that there are probably some people who are genetically challenged at losing weight, just like there are people with crazy metabolisms that can't gain weight no matter how much they eat. But even if you don't get all the way to a 6-pack, you'll still feel good, have more energy, and (most importantly) be healthier.

      Difficult weight loss is still weight loss. It will just take longer to achieve the same results. Go to a gym and talk to a nutritionist. Develop a weight loss plan (you should be able to come up with a plan based on your starting weight and you goal in 1 session), then count your calories, and do moderate exercise a few times a week. Replace ramen and TV dinners with better quality food so you're getting the most out of those calories.

      --
      blog
    18. Re:Power by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Marilyn Monroe was not fat.

      I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language or you have some mild developmental problem.

      Monroe is hourglass but thin whereas Natalie Portman looks like a boy. Neither are fat.

      There are thin women considered attractive who are not anywhere near boyish - Naomi Campbell would be a fairly long-running example - and there are fat women who are attractive - I offer Sophie Dahl. The size is a minor issue: it's just typical geekery to take some ideal, in this case "not being fat", and take it to the extreme.

      But the major issue is looking like a 12 year old boy.

      You, like so many geeks, prefer the 12 year old boy look.

      I'm not asking you to deny it. It's just the way you are. I'm wondering why.

    19. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natalie Portman doesn't have an hourglass figure? As in her hips and shoulders aren't around the same width, while her waist is thinner? Compare a 12 year old boy to Natalie Portman, and you will find Portman has the wider hips and narrower waist. That is all it is. Guys have more broad shoulders and narrower hips. Girls have narrower shoulders and wider hips.

      How many 12 year old boys do you know who look like this? You are so obsessed with this idea that Natalie Portman looks like a boy. She is absolutely beautiful. A perfect 10. Get over it.

      Pretending that beautiful women are ugly and that men who aren't attracted to you are gay pedophiles won't do anything to make you a happier person. Not in the long run.

    20. Re:Power by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The phrase you are looking for is Waist to Hip Ratio.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    21. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is ugly because she is a hebe.

    22. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny because (1) you choose a pic where she's wearing a loose, padded corset fitting (badly) to desperately suggest that she doesn't have a boyish figure and (2) You assume Hazel Bergeron is fat... or even female. If you weren't the sort of testosterone-filled teen geek who goes after Natalie Portman, you'd know that there are no women on the Internet.

      Also, her face is ugly because Jews tend to have ugly faces. Liking Jewish faces doesn't make you a pedo - it's liking boy figures that makes you a pedo, no matter how much makeup and adult clothing you put on them - but liking Jewish faces does add to the evidence that you have incredibly bad taste.

    23. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) How about bikini pics? Of course having normal hips/waist for a female is only one problem with the 12 year old boy comparison. She also has boobs, which a 12 year old boy shouldn't have. This whole conversation is an exercise in denial of the obvious, so I'm not sure how much of this is necessary to point out, but there you go.

      2) The exception to the no girls on the internet rule is that fat girls do use the internet. There is a decent chance that Hazel Bergeron is a fat tranny, but it is more likely that she is just a fat girl. Fat girls like the internet because nobody can tell that they are fat. That is, until they rage about hot girls like Natalie Portman.

      3) As Strom Thurmond once said, "The pecker knows no prejudice."

    24. Re:Power by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      1) Barely shaped hips except perhaps in the second pic (but that could just be from her stance); small training-bra breasts. Sorry, dude, you're in some serious denial;

      2) There's a decent chance that Hazel Bergeron is a skinny male who adopts the name of a character from the usually misinterpreted book Harrison Bergeron because she epitomises the average human which hilariously angry geeks adopt the prejudice that they must be superior to;

      3) Can't disagree there.

    25. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Barely shaped hips" is meaningless drivel. She has female shaped hips. 12 year old males are not shaped like her. Small perky breasts are the best breasts there are. 12 year old males do not have breasts, small or otherwise - unless they are fat, and look even less like her.

      Thin adult females have the best bodies. Nobody wants big fat saggy boobs attached to a big fat saggy body.

      You still can't accept that people who find thin adult females attractive are not gay pedophiles. You still have no point whatsoever.

      Call me angry all you want, you are the one making ridiculous claims about the sexuality of someone you don't even know. Try this with someone in real life and you are likely to be slapped with a lawsuit.

    26. Re:Power by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      "Barely shaped hips" is meaningless drivel.

      Paper search for "waist to hip ratio". The phrase isn't only meaningful but is the subject of multiple studies on health and attractiveness. And guess what? It's visibly below 1.0 on average for healthy men but even further below that for women.

      you are likely to be slapped with a lawsuit.

      Though there's a risk of enjoying a lawsuit (lol, America) for publicly making any accusation, "in real life" simply giving someone your conclusion - that it's true in this case is irrelevant - gives no ground for legal action.

      But congratulations on showing your cards. Such a stupid remark makes it clear that you're a troll and that not even you can honestly say Natalie Portman doesn't look like a boy. Your tenacity betrays your true desires. So, back to my first question: why? What is it with geeks like you?

    27. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another content free post. "Barely shaped hips" is meaningless drivel in the context of Natalie Portman, because her hips are normal for a female of her age - but abnormal for a 12 year old male. You know this, but brush it aside and then mischaracterize rather than make a valid argument. This is pretty much all you do.

      Yes, it is true that people who spill hot coffee on themselves and then sue others are idiots. Branding an innocent person as a pedophile because they aren't interested in your fat saggy boobs and would prefer an adult who is fit and in shape is not the same thing. You just don't have the right to call people pedophiles because you aren't happy. You steer clear of using the actual word pedophile, but you state as fact that people are attracted to 12 year old males based solely on the fact that they are attracted to adult females. Not guilty by reason of being a complete moron is not a valid defense.

    28. Re:Power by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Ah, the sound of furious backpedalling. Now it's meaningless drivel in context, which is another way of saying perfectly meaningful remark but the measurements I obtained during my wet denial dreams do not support your conclusion. But at least you're no longer stumbling on a matter of law - that a well-built human of either gender past six years of age has a WHR<<1.0 with WHR(female)<WHR(male) - and getting down to the matter of fact. Progress be praised.

      Though, Christ, I'm beginning to lose count of the number of times you've told me that you're not a pedo. At least you've perhaps finally taken the time to read my posts to see that I've not accused you once of being a pedo, nor even lusting after 12 year old boys. Is it that you've been accused of being pedo so many times that you just assume that this is what's being said? If so, would you perhaps review the evidence which causes people to jump to this conclusion?

    29. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can throw around terms, facts, statistics, and yes - they have meaning. They are real. Until they are applied to the context of our conversation and Natalie Portman, they are meaningless to the conversation.

      Prove that Natalie Portman is shaped like a 12 year old boy, not the way that a female of her age should be. You can't.

      Since you can't give any proof that Natalie Portman has a body like that of a 12 year old male, all of your "why do you prefer girls who look like 12 year old boys" questions are also meaningless.

      I don't know for sure why you are doing this, but I have seen this attitude plenty of times before in overweight girls. They start seeing healthy thin girls as anorexics as an excuse to stop wanting to look like them. They see diets (which never seem to work for them) as the same thing as starvation, therefore not worth putting effort into any more. Then they start claiming or at least implying that guys who want thin girls must really want something else hint hint, why else would they want these girls that really look like little boys? Hey I have big boobs. Guys like big boobs right? Oh you don't want big boobs? You must be a fag!

      Most people don't have a lot of patience, and are too polite to say what they really think. They will just agree with people to shut them up. Don't believe that the average person who agrees with you on this is fooled. They know why you say these things, they just don't want to hurt your feelings. Nobody believes the things that you are saying other than the people who need to in order to feel good about themselves.

      I'm sure you could go on like this forever playing with the meaning of words and phrases, but I can't. You get the last word. I know that you need it, and you aren't responding to anything I say with even the slightest bit of intelligence or seriousness, so I'm done reloading this old article.

    30. Re:Power by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      You reloaded.

      Good day, Sir.

    31. Re:Power by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i'd prefer a Liu wen clone, this would open up a nice business niche in aqcuired superior genetic material i suppose, should we start watermarking our dna in case someone accidentaly happens to acquire it and uses it for commercial purposes ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  4. Not much difference by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Pure-bred dogs are bred in such a small population that they were getting pretty close to being clones anyway.

    1. Re:Not much difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between inbred and cloned.

      Pure-bred dogs are inbred to the point of causing severe genetic deformities.

      We don't look at the same inbreeding in humans and say "My, that's an interesting advancement in human cloning, isn't it?"

    2. Re:Not much difference by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      We don't look at the same inbreeding in humans and say "My, that's an interesting advancement in human cloning, isn't it?"

      Why do we find foreign and mixed race women (/men) exotic?

      We are naturally attracted because we can make excellent children with them. Shake up the gene pool.

    3. Re:Not much difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Same 'Anonymous Coward' as before so at this point I may have to create a full account!]

      I meant 'inbreeding' as 'coming from the same family line'.
      If i had a cat and it had kittens I wouldn't think that breeding a sister and brother from that litter with eachother would produce a 'clone' of the parent cat/ brother/ sister. That would be inbreeding, no matter what the species.

      'Selective breeding' would be more in-line with what you're thinking and it a practice that works quite well. Just look at the Clydesdale horse, a testament to selective breeding.
      Strong, reliable, immediately recognizable, and purpose bred- all of them can be traced back to Scotland in the 1800s (originating in an area called Clydesdale)
      Now that really is an interesting advancement in horse breeding. But not in horse cloning.

    4. Re:Not much difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant 'inbreeding' as 'coming from the same family line'.
      If i had a cat and it had kittens I wouldn't think that breeding a sister and brother from that litter with eachother would produce a 'clone' of the parent cat/ brother/ sister. That would be inbreeding, no matter what the species.

      'Selective breeding' would be more in-line with what you're thinking and it a practice that works quite well. Just look at the Clydesdale horse, a testament to selective breeding.
      Strong, reliable, immediately recognizable, and purpose bred- all of them can be traced back to Scotland in the 1800s (originating in an area called Clydesdale)
      Now that really is an interesting advancement in horse breeding... But not in horse cloning.

    5. Re:Not much difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Properly bred purebreds do not have issues. The breeds are well in tact. Backyard breeders are the problem. Never buy from someone who doesn't show their dogs.

  5. Have racehorses been cloned? by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    They are the most expensive non-Human animals right? Other than perhaps extinct animals that people want to bring back like the Saber-tooth tiger, the wooly mammoth and the Dodo (not). What about truffle finding pigs?

    Actually maybe certain transgenic animals that have had their DNA altered to express useful drugs (like goats with insulin laced milk) might be more expensive.

    Anyway, is it illegal race a cloned racehorse? Will they be requiring genetic tests on all winning racehorses? What about race horses that have already died (Seabiscuit?).

    1. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In most places they don't even allow racehorses to be bred by artificial insemination, they insist on live cover only.(*) That stops a few issues, swapping a whole stallion is harder than swapping a test-tube of semen, so it cuts down on fraud. Also, semen can be thinned and used to breed more mares, so the already rather inbred population would get even worse if everybody was breeding their mares to just a handful of top stallions. Natural breeding puts an upper limit on the number of foals you can get from one stallion. You could clone your horse if you wanted, but there's no way that horse would be allowed to be registered in the stud books, so you could never race it or breed other racehorses from it.

      What I have seen proposed is allowing a gelding to be cloned, once, so that you have a genetically identical stallion which can be used to breed from in place of the gelding. Currently racehorse owners just see dollar signs hanging between their stallions legs, even though it takes years to find out if your stallion is one of the few that will actually make any money at stud after retiring from racing. Since stallions can be violently unpredictable animals, it would make racing safer if they could all be gelded at the start, and just the few that are worthwhile cloned for breeding.

      Cloning famous past horses might be a disappointment anyway. Some of the record times those horses put in back then are routine these days. Although it would answer some questions about how much of that is improved training vs genetics.

      * - There are exceptions. The local racing board here allows an exemption for stallions who've been injured in a manner that prevents breeding naturally. The exemptions are granted on a case by case basis, and the stallion has to be excited by the mare he's going to be bred to, with the semen is transferred to the mare within 5 minutes.

    2. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by kzanol · · Score: 1

      Yes. Been done. Austrian showjumper Hugo Simon had a very successfull horse, E.T. Problem: it was a gelding which certainly made breeding the horse a challenge. Entry "E.T. Stallion", a clone of E.T wich was not used in competition, but was used for breeding. a couple of offspring of E.T. Stallion are said to be active at the moment. See http://www.cryozootech.com/index.php?m=the_horses&d=et_stallion_en&l=en

      --
      you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make this change take effect
    3. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "non-Human animals"?

      You should stop considering yourself as an animal. Humans != animals.

    4. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You would prefer to see humans classified as fungus perhaps? Or maybe as a type of metamorphic rock?

    5. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      I wonder then why my fur and claws never stop growing, even when I don't use them, and why do I feel aroused when some girls passes around with a high pheromone level... Or why do I get hungry and have to take a shit every day.

      Fact is, we are animals. And much more than most care to admit. The only difference, really, is that most animals are more selective about what they eat than us.

    6. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      If that much, for some of them.

    7. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      so you could never race it or breed other racehorses from it.

      Because what? The police would arrest you? The racing overlords would have you killed?
      What would stop anyone from setting up a competing race with their own rules?

    8. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police would arrest you? The racing overlords would have you killed?
      What would stop anyone from setting up a competing race with their own rules?

      1) No, someone much worse. See #2
      2) The mafia (that controls horse racing) would rub you out, and half your county for good measure.
      3) See #2.

    9. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Inda · · Score: 1

      Pigs aren't used for finding truffles any more, they tend to eat them.

      Dogs are better at the job, and they can be trained not to eat the goods.

      And truffles can be farmed.

      Just saying :)

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    10. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yeah you could set up some kind of unlimited league where anything goes, then start setting limits when too many jockeys get killed in high-speed doped-up genetically modified horse crashes. The Formula One of the horse world.

      Meh, still boring...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I don't know that that would be the "Formula One" of the horse world. Formula One has been sanitized and sterilized so much over the last two decades that I suspect such a horse could almost out-run a Formula One car! ;)

      F1 is about entertainment now- not the cutting edge technology and speed.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    12. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well horse races make their money from gambling, and gambling is illegal in most US states with some states making exceptions for horse tracks. You'd have to look at the laws for the location you want to build your track, and probably have to lobby the local legislature. At which point the existing race industry's lobbyists will paint you as a mad scientist who wants to race genetically modified cybernetic death horses that could escape and destroy the world.

    13. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they'd bring back Secretariat first. More samples to use too since (I think) he was one of very few horses to have his whole body buried when he died.

      Still, don't cloned animals still have a variety of health problems? I mean, this dog could be an interesting case study but they should probably make sure they can keep clones healthy before they start relying on stuff like this.

    14. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you meant "snuff you out". The mafia isn't traditionally known for giving people handjobs.

    15. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you imagine a clone of Secretariat??or Affirmed??....wow..(they're long since deceased, but..)

      I'm the horse racing authorities would put their foot down on racing cloned horses.

      Of course, it's not all the horse....the fastest horse in the world can't win with a crappy jockey..

    16. Re:Have racehorses been cloned? by Dabido · · Score: 1

      More expensive than humans in many cases.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  6. Yes by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Stupid question. If it can be done it/allowed will be done.

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

      Of course! Haven't you hear of RePet???? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216216/

  7. Labrador retriever by Dark+Lord+of+Ohio · · Score: 3, Informative

    No wonder, they are they smartest dogs on this planet. And really good friends. And really kids friendly.

    1. Re:Labrador retriever by NatasRevol · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And, since it is South Korea, tasty!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Labrador retriever by Inda · · Score: 1

      We had a male Labrador.

      One day it decided to test its place on the ladder, and went for my mother.

      My father reasserted his authority as alpha male, by means of a neck grab and shake, and that was the end of the situation.

      Labradors are dogs; pack animals; and they play by their rules. Never underestimate a dog's potential, no matter what breed.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:Labrador retriever by Dark+Lord+of+Ohio · · Score: 0

      This goes bit off topic but ok. I had three labs before this one. So it's my fourth. Never had any problems with them, except ruined shoes and stuff, but they do stupid things when they are young and full of energy. There are dogs who have "personality disorders", like we humans have. So maybe you were just out of luck or something went wrong when your dog was young pup. My labs never showed aggression, you have to work with your dog if you want to have perfect companion for your family. Thats why humans go to school, we learn that fighting with each other is bad thing and that violence is not always the way to solve problems. Without that we would probably never make it further than the Dark Ages. Same with dogs (not only labs) you will let them act stupid, they will.

    4. Re:Labrador retriever by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Yes, yes, $(YOUR_FAVOURITE_BREED) is a proud, noble dog. Alert, intelligent, sociable, $(YOUR_FAVOURITE_BREED) is a loyal companion if correctly raised. Behavioural problems with $(YOUR_FAVOURITE_BREED) are inevitably the fault of the owner.

      Save it for Wikipedia, where thanks to gushing starry eyed defensive owners, every other breed page reads exactly like $(YOUR_FAVOURITE_BREED)'s page.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Labrador retriever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had one. He was batshit crazy. Bit me on one occasion (unprovoked) and tried several other times.

    6. Re:Labrador retriever by Dark+Lord+of+Ohio · · Score: 2

      Yes, my dog is proud, inteligent, loyal and you don't have such friend and you will never have, unless you have Nintendo DS/DSi/3DS and will get yourself and play Nintendogs.

    7. Re:Labrador retriever by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Well, my dog is gentle but very dumb. Yells a lot at passing people but strangely if we aren't around anybody can come to the house while she hides in the back of the garden. Great with kids and cats though. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a dog.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:Labrador retriever by Kittenman · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of the person who crossed a labrador with a curly-coated retriever. He got a lab-coat retriever and was selling the puppies to scientists.

      (Thank you - I'm here 'til Thursday)

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    9. Re:Labrador retriever by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      My brother had one that tried that dominant bullshit. I walked over and very calmly punched him in the jaw. Never had a lick of trouble from him again. Just everybody setting out the pecking order.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  8. Of course there will by msobkow · · Score: 2

    Monsanto has already patented their GMOs. Silly to ask if somethings goign to happen when it's already done.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Of course there will by sosume · · Score: 2

      Impossible, the prior art is obvious! In the case of Monsanto one could argue that the seeds have been specifically engineered. However, in this case, it is a direct clone of a naturally bred dog. You cannot get a patent on a copy?

    2. Re:Of course there will by msobkow · · Score: 1

      It would be a debatable point if you're patenting a particular expression of genes, as every non-cloned individuals genome is unique and therefore has no "prior art." Genetics are a very specific expression of something compared most modern patents.

      However, I do believe there was some discussion in the UN about banning patents on genomes, but I don't know what ever came out of those discussions. I'm sure if they did the smart thing and decided to ban patenting natural genomes that the corporate world will appeal and fire a rather large team of lawyers at the issue rather than accept that they can't own something.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:Of course there will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or just de-naturalise the genome.

      1. Take prize-winning animal.

      2. Take sample cell.

      3. Make some small but patentable modification. Doesn't have to do much.

      4. Incinerate original animal, to make sure the competition can't get their hands on it.

      5. Start mass-cloneing your slightly modified and thus patent-protected genome.

    4. Re:Of course there will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents are a cousin to Copyrights in the IP family.

  9. We've been doing that in plants for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With avocados, oranges, and lots of other fruits.
    I'm still not sure if I would like to clone my dog, since I will have to re train him anyway...

    1. Re:We've been doing that in plants for years by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      And oxen. A lot.

  10. Questionable at best. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

    Considering that recent, careful studies have shown that the abilities of drug-sniffing dogs are little more than police wet dreams anyway, the efficacy of the "clones" has to be questioned too.

    In most cases, the dogs responded to cues (intentional or not) on the part of the dog's handler, rather than any actual detection of drugs. Double-blind studies have shown how effective they actually are in the real world, which is... not.

    1. Re:Questionable at best. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I mean, come on, folks. Korea is claiming performance in the cloned dogs that has never been proven in the original dogs. If they are correct, it would have to be some kind of magic.

    2. Re:Questionable at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for providing a link to these studies!

    3. Re:Questionable at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's why we should use cats instead: cats wouldn't respond to cues from the handler.

    4. Re:Questionable at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we should use cats instead: cats wouldn't respond to cues from the handler.

      But there's not much money in smuggling cats.

    5. Re:Questionable at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obvious you don't like police, but dogs can and do detect drugs effectively.

      In the part of the world I live in the police seem too busy looking for real druggies than waste time emitting useless cues about folks they dislike. If that's a problem your side of the world, get elected and fix your handler and dog training programs.

      And no, owing an untrained dog from the shelter does not make one an expert on sniffer dogs. The training of sniffer dogs focuses them on detecting drugs, not responding to subconscious cues. If youve seen a confident dog sniffing you'd note they too are really too busy in their search to pay attention to subtle cues from their handler

    6. Re:Questionable at best. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ...emitting useless cues about folks they dislike.

      The cues they 'emit' do not have to be intentional - a reaction to seeing a particularly ugly piece of luggage or one that screams "conspicuous consumption" might set the dog off. You allude to that in the next sentence with the word 'subconscious'.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    7. Re:Questionable at best. by domatic · · Score: 1

      Yes but juggling them is something else altogether.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qbc2J0zZr8

    8. Re:Questionable at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. (am the original poster) my point is that the busier the handler is, and the more focussed on his job, the less likely he is to "emit" biased cues the dog would notice.

      My second point is that a sniffer dog would be trained to focus on the sniffing, and not the biases of the handler ... the dog handler and dog trainer(s) are generally separate people

  11. all that means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is that one day a drug cartel will create a genetically engineered virus that kills/disables those particular clones in order to defeat the detection. the big drug cartels outdo law enforcement in ingenuity and resources.

    there's actually a story about how some american narco-cartel had their own IBM mainframe - while the agents trying to get them were relying on paper files

  12. Copyright != Patent by TenDollarMan · · Score: 1

    Copyright is a different protection to patent.

    A patent could protect a novel method of cloning. Ie, the specific way the geneticist uses his or her test tubes etc in the lab to get the clone. Wouldn't stop anyone breeding a sniffer dog.

    A copyright cannot protect the clone. Unless the scientist actually wrote out the genome from his or her mind in some inspired supergenius way: GTTACCAATGCA....... Which is impossible.

    --
    I hate my flatmate
    1. Re:Copyright != Patent by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 2

      I swear I read GATTACA

    2. Re:Copyright != Patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright also protects code that's not binary.

      I guess they'll claim it the animal version of glutSolidTeapot.

    3. Re:Copyright != Patent by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that a particular clone set (clones of a particular dog) would be patentable, just as at present there are many patented varieties of roses and other plants, that result from selective breeding. (USPTO info on plant patents). In those cases they are effectively clones, having been created by making cuttings of the original plant. They are genetically identical. Patent would be stronger protection than copyright.

      However, from my reading of the USPTO info, those patents apply to plants, not animals. I'm too lazy to research further. It may be that animal clones would have be to added to this patent structure by legislation in order to be patentable. Whether that is a good idea is an exercise for the reader. But I expect it will happen.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    4. Re:Copyright != Patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well.

  13. Electronics aren't much better by msobkow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember the Toronto airport security testing out one of the electronic sniffers. It was supposed to be much more sensitive than dogs are.

    The problem is, it was too sensitive. It turns out that after a few decades of smuggling, pretty much every surface in the baggage handling are has been exposed to drugs or explosives at some time or other, so the electronic sniffer kept going off.

    When they turned down the sensitivity, it was no better than a dog.

    Case in point: 90 percent of U.S. bils carry traces of cocaine. The fact that a sniffer or a dog "goes off" only justifies further investigation; it's far from proof.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  14. Do Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs Taste Better? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do they prove successful? Do Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs simply taste better?

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Do Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs Taste Better? by catmistake · · Score: 0

      How do they prove successful? Do Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs simply taste better?

      Well played, Sir.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    2. Re:Do Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs Taste Better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if seasoned with cloned salt and pepper..........

    3. Re:Do Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs Taste Better? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      Only if seasoned with cloned salt and pepper..........

      Like in "Push it REAL Good"?

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  15. Slamhound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They sent a slamhound on Turner's trail in New Delhi, slotted it to his pheromones and the color of his hair. It caught up with him on a street called Chandni Chauk and came scrambling for his rented BMW through a forest of bare brown legs and pedicab tires. Its core was a kilogram of recrystallized hexogene and flaked TNT. He didn't see it coming. The last he saw of India was the pink stucco facade of a place called the Khush-Oil Hotel.

    Count Zero (1986) William Gibson

    1. Re:Slamhound by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that was a robot, right? Like a cruise missile with legs.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  16. Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That long-winded dog names like SH CH VBOS The Kentuckian are going to have version numbers now? SH CH VBOS THE KENTUCKIAN v2.1: Bugs fixed with this release: Fleas.

  17. The New Evolution by ardeez · · Score: 1

    This is the new evolution

    If you're fit enough to serve humans' purpose, you get to survive to the next generation.

    Pity those animals that currently don't.

    --
    don't be a spelling loser
    1. Re:The New Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the new evolution

      If you're fit enough to serve humans' purpose, you get to survive to the next generation.

      Pity those animals that currently don't.

      Um, where have you been for the last 12000 years?

      Cows? Sheep? Chickens? Do you think these creatures just sprung into existence in the perfect form for human exploitation?
      Meat and dairy cows have been selectively bred (The 'best' [for some farmer defined value of 'best'] cows are allowed to have calves, the others are prevented from breeding) for ages.

      Dogs used to be wolves until they were selectively bred to be tolerant and loyal to their human handlers. We've been doing this shit for a long time already.

  18. I'm going to guess they have the same issues by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I'm going to guess they have the same issues as other clones, to wit: shortened telomeres resulting in a shortened Hayflick limit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit and therefore a shortened lifespan. Subtract out the age of the dog at the time the samples used for cloning were taken.

    I made this same point (to NBC) as a possibility in early 1997 when Dolly the sheep was announced, and it turned out I was correct in my assertion; see this report: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/15204559950020003

    -- Terry

  19. Pointless Retardation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legalize drugs, and you don't need drug dogs and all this retarded crap.

    1. Re:Pointless Retardation by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Prohibition never works. It only breeds crime and violent criminal organizations which would never exist without prohibition. Legalize drugs and pull the rug out from under these violent gangs.

  20. To much "IP" news on my brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first thought on reading the headline was "wow, a dog can reliably detect generic pharmaceuticals?!" - thought "cloned" referred to the drugs, not the dogs.

  21. Words, what do they mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever seen an hourglass, you fuckwit? You sound the typical American who claimes to like big boobs, then picks the 34Bs ouf of the lineup.

    Go back to your lolita porn.

    1. Re:Words, what do they mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thin adult females look nothing like children. Go back to eating mayonnaise out of the jar or whatever it is bitter fat bitches like you normally do.

  22. Sure they can sniff out drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But sniffing another clone's ass sends them into an existensial crisis.

  23. Age issue by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I read that cloned animals have the same age as their originals (right from the birth), thus cloning even middle aged animals becomes less attractive financially as clones have a substantially short(er) life span.

    Is this fact still valid?

  24. Korea cloning dogs by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else see a secondary agenda here?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  25. Sumilov Dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This type of thing has been done for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulimov_Dog

    None of those dogs are allowed out of Russia, and are all technically property of Aeroflot.

    1. Re:Sumilov Dogs by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they're half jackals! And they're not cloned. The jackals and Siberian huskies were bred "naturally", which in Russia probably involves some romantic music and a dogbowl full of vodka. If this Korean dog really has such a great nose, they should breed it with the Sulimov dogs, which are probably even better at odor discrimination, but possibly less good at working with people (being half jackals). For now I pity the fool who flies into Moscow with a bag of cocaine in his underpants.

  26. No factual difference if the genes are identical by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    How an embryo was formed is no longer significant, if inbreeds have 100% the same genes. Thats his point.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  27. So if... by woboyle · · Score: 1

    So, if I commit a crime, can I have my clone do my time?

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
    1. Re:So if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See - multiplicity

  28. Re:No factual difference if the genes are identica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How an embryo was formed is no longer significant, if inbreeds have 100% the same genes. Thats his point.

    Um no. I'm not sure how you even arrive at this assumption, because even someone completely ignorant of genetics should realize that a naturally conceived offspring can be both genders, while a clone will always be the same gender. But beyond that, you will get difference even beyond the sex chromosomes, because animals have two copies of genes. If the parents have (A, B), the offspring can have (A, A) (A, B) or (B, B), while the clone will always have (A, B). While the odds of being the same are 50% in a single instance, across the entire genome it is extremely unlikely that it would be so. Thus inbreeding identical (as can be) individuals will result in loss of genetic diversity, and the chances of getting rare recessive combinations increases greatly, whereas cloning will maintain the exact - known good - genome.

  29. Re:No factual difference if the genes are identica by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

    What if A and B are the same?