Slashdot Mirror


Australian Billionaire Wants To Build Jurassic Park-Style Resort

lukehopewell1 writes "Australian billionaire Clive Palmer has already floated a plan to rebuild the Titanic to scale and sail it around the world, but now the mining magnate has found a new use for his money: cloning dinosaurs. Palmer reportedly wants to clone a dinosaur and let it loose in one of his resorts in Queensland, Australia. The billionaire has already been in touch with the scientists who helped clone Dolly the sheep to see what it would take to clone a dinosaur from DNA."

409 comments

  1. Awesome! by Elgonn · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't care how stupid, impossible, and just damn right eccentric this sounds.

    1. Re:Awesome! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      Crichton was trying to make a point with his Jurassic Park novels. It was a cautionary tale about "the law of unintended consequences".

    2. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't it come across as "never do anything because there might be unintended consequences", though? I mean, the point of unintended consequences is you can't predict whether anything you do will have bad ones or not.

    3. Re:Awesome! by niftydude · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't hold your breath. Clive Palmer has a long history of shooting his mouth off about grandiose schemes, then not following through with any action.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    4. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we bring back dinosaures to life, the will eat us

    5. Re:Awesome! by jcr · · Score: 2

      Oh, is that what he was getting at? What I got from that movie is "don't clone dinosaurs unless you've got armored vehicles to wrangle them with."

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Awesome! by CheshireDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like every other eccentric out there. No one cares that the rich are crazy, only the hobo on the street corner.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    7. Re:Awesome! by Kam+Solusar · · Score: 2

      "There is a problem with that island. It is an accident waiting to happen."

      -- Ian Malcolm, Jurrassic Park

      --
      The Angels have the Phone Box
    8. Re:Awesome! by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought the take-away was, "Pay your programmers well, or things will go horribly wrong."

      Also, don't breed that really large, featherless, murderous variety of chess playing velociraptor with opposable digits. They're not worth the aggravation.

    9. Re:Awesome! by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or "don't go with the lowest bidder for the computer system controlling everything in your park".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:Awesome! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Crichton was trying to make a point with his Jurassic Park novels. It was a cautionary tale about "the law of unintended consequences".

      And so? Why should we take Jurassic Park, or any work of fiction, as a guide to the way this would work in the real world?

      Cautionary tales of Science Run Amok are at least as old as modern science itself (Frankenstein was published in 1818, arguably about the point where science as we understand it today was emerging from the morass of religious teleology, superstition, and philosophical maundering) and for just as long, they've been held up as examples of why we shouldn't do this or that: "That which we know now is Good and Right and The Way Things Are, but this new knowledge you're seeking is in the realm of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know!" And for the entire time, science has gone ahead anyway, and within a generation or two everyone pretty much agrees that it was a good thing ... just in time to complain about whatever new field of knowledge is opening up and is therefore Scary and Dangerous.

      I'd say spending any amount of money to clone dinosaurs is a bad idea, but that's not because the end result will be people getting eaten by raptors. It's because we don't have any dinosaur DNA* and aren't likely to have enough to get anything like a complete sequence, nor do we have nearly enough basic biological knowledge to create a viable embryo even if we did have the genetic information. Now, speaking as a bioinformaticist, if Clive Palmer wants to devote a portion of his considerable wealth to creating the knowledge that would allow us to clone dinosaurs if we were lucky enough to retrieve some reasonably intact tissue, I'll applaud -- but I hope he's not expecting to have a pet stegosaurus any time in the next few years, or even decades.

      *Not counting bird DNA, which of course is plentiful, but reconstructing the ancestral sequences back to the point necessary to create "dinosaurs" as most people think of them would be just about as huge a challenge as building the whole thing from scratch.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:Awesome! by metrix007 · · Score: 2

      Is it 100% certain that birds came from dinosaurs? I thought that was just a popular hypothesis?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    12. Re:Awesome! by Lotana · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have read several of his books and came to the conclusion that either he is really afraid of all science and technology or just writing his books targeting the audience that are. Every single book came down to: "See? SEE?! This is why you fucking scientists shouldn't do anything remotely exprimental!!!"

    13. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No matter how primitive the technology, it's possible to construct a cautionary tale of how it will fail: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/

    14. Re:Awesome! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it's pretty well accepted at this point. Early birds and feathered ground-dwelling dromeosaurs are anatomically almost identical. Obviously there's no way to be sure without DNA, but we're probably about as sure that aves is a subset of dinosauria as we are of anything in paleontology. (IANAP, terms and conditions may apply, see your local paleontologist for details.)

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:Awesome! by easyTree · · Score: 2

      On communist earth, us eat dinosaurs.

      Humans are pretty scary. I'm seeing a possible future with McVelociraptor Burgers.

    16. Re:Awesome! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh, I suppose. The real point of it is: "Turn pages and tell your buddies to buy this book."

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    17. Re:Awesome! by nyctopterus · · Score: 2

      It's pretty much certain at this point. The skeletal anatomical evidence alone would be enough, but now there's a whole slew of independent confirmation from soft tissues, molecular studies, and behavioural evidence. We are more certain birds are dinosaurs than we are most other dinosaurs are dinosaurs.

    18. Re:Awesome! by Twinbee · · Score: 2

      So after the death of the dino, how long would we have to extract complete DNA? 10 years? 1000?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    19. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Doesn't it come across as "never do anything because there might be unintended consequences", though? I mean, the point of unintended consequences is you can't predict whether anything you do will have bad ones or not.

      Actually no, Chrighton's point was that while we cannot predict what unintended consequences would be - with chaos theory we can predict the likelihood of there being unintended consequences and the likely impact there-off on the overall stability of the prediction system - and if those predictions say "you will have unintended consequences to the extent that prediction and stability becomes extremely unlikely" then you probably shouldn't go ahead.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    20. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not in the least. Read the forewords and author's notes as well and you'll see a very different point of view: science for PROFIT is extremely risky.

      His concern isn't science for the sake of knowledge, but the inherent dangers of doing science for the sake of money. That become science done in secret rather than open, science that cuts corners to save costs, science that is applied for dubious rather than nobel goals.

      He loves genetic engineering and it's possibility to improve lives for example, but as he shows in "Next" - he despises the idea of "gene patents".

      The problem with Jurassic Park wasn't that it was science, but that it was consumerist-driven.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    21. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Using nothing more than signal chemicals (something like growth hormones) applied at the right spot during the right moment of embryo growth, it's possible to make chickens grow teeth. A different substance applied at the base of the spine during early embryo formation gets you a chicken with a long, dinosaur-like tail. You can do something similar to the wings too, unbending them in a way that makes them more like handclaws.

      This is without any genetic modification at all. The data to revert a chicken to something with dinosaurlike claws, teeth and tail all still exists in the standard modern chicken genome. There's nowhere near enough data preserved in chickens to reverse what evolution has done to them over tens of millions of years, but there is a lot more preserved than you might expect.

      Look up Jack Horner's "chickenosaurus" concept for the details. His book has info on the experimental background to the idea.

    22. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >And for the entire time, science has gone ahead anyway, and within a generation or two everyone pretty much agrees that it was a good thing ... just in time to complain about whatever new field of knowledge is opening up and is therefore Scary and Dangerous.

      Because the atom bomb was a good thing, so is computers used to destroy privacy, drone strikes killing civilians who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - all examples of science driven technology that wasn't possible until quite recently... it's not as simple as you think. Science is knowledge, knowledge is power, power can be used for good or evil (the same nuclear power can produce energy, the same guidance systems in drones can make safer plane landings, the same computers can help dissidents revolt against terrible governments more safely), the point of cautionary science fiction I always thought was to warn us about the potential evil, so we can avoid that while still using the knowledge for good.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:Awesome! by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      OK, Thanks. Was it only a specific type/line of dinosaurs that evolved into birds, or do different birds come from different lines of dinosaurs?

      I'm not familiar with biology so substitute line with order, or class or whatever is most appropriate.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    24. Re:Awesome! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      Because the atom bomb was a good thing, so is computers used to destroy privacy, drone strikes killing civilians who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time

      The atom bomb was (and is) a good thing. Notice how no one's actually tried to take over the world lately? It's not because people have grown any less ambitious or bloodthirsty since the days of Alexander or Temujin or Napoleon or Hitler.

      As for the other examples, yes, of course these technologies can be misused. But I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that computer and aviation technology in general haven't made the world a better place. Cautionary tales such as Frankenstein, and the moden Luddite favorites Gattaca and Jurassic Park, tend to argue against science and technological advancement in general: not "You shouldn't use this knowledge to do that specific thing," but "This knowledge should be left alone forever." Which is fundamentally a pretty dumb idea, and even dumber when people use computers to express it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    25. Re:Awesome! by hvm2hvm · · Score: 5, Funny

      science that is applied for dubious rather than nobel goals

      Yeah, all scientists should have a nobel as a goal, not money

      --
      ics
    26. Re:Awesome! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Dromeosaurs (a.k.a. raptors) which were, as far as we can tell, all feathered. Some of the smaller ones took to the air (probably after an intermediate stage of gliding for short distances) and, well, that was that. I don't know whether this is something that's thought to have happened only once and given rise to all modern birds, or several times throughout the Mesozoic and given rise to several different lines (which is a perfectly good word in this context, BTW) of descent that survived to the modern day.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    27. Re:Awesome! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Neat stuff! Thanks for the info.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    28. Re:Awesome! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Kinda funny with their custom control TV series though.

      "OH WTF YOU'VE GOT NUTS IN THIS BAG?!"

      "a dinosaur? Move along."

      Though I do understand the later will be more controlled than people bringing various insects, seeds and what not.. Those will are more likely to reproduce/start new lifes than the dinosaur.

    29. Re:Awesome! by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Pay your programmers well, or things will go horribly wrong."

      No problem. I/we/she/whatever knows UNIX! ;D

    30. Re:Awesome! by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not the scientists who cause the problem in Jurassic Park, it's the selfish, money-obsessed fat-arsed geek who fucks everything up.

      But I can see why most slashdotters would not like this interpretation.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Awesome! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Depends on the conditions after death, among other things. If it's lying out in the open, a few weeks to a few months, less in warm weather or if it's ripped up by scavengers. If the conditions are just right ... well, right now we may or may not be able to get enough DNA from mammoths frozen for ~10,000 years, and which froze almost immediately after they died. A few tens of millions of years? Probably not, although we could always get fantastically lucky.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    32. Re:Awesome! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      With the affecting 600 million Indians power outage I guess India isn't the right place to build this .. (fail-safe design and so on.)

    33. Re:Awesome! by Macrat · · Score: 1

      How can you go wrong with Sun SPARC systems?

    34. Re:Awesome! by DrXym · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dinosaurs and unicorns simply didn't make it onto the ark. That's all you need to know.

    35. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually no, Chrighton's point was that while we cannot predict what unintended consequences would be - with chaos theory we can predict the likelihood of there being unintended consequences and the likely impact there-off on the overall stability of the prediction system - and if those predictions say "you will have unintended consequences to the extent that prediction and stability becomes extremely unlikely" then you probably shouldn't go ahead.

      Problem is that naysayers tend to go all "ZOMG!! things can go wrong!" rather than "There is a 0.34% possibility that 1-3 people will die if we do this, that is worse than driving a car so we shouldn't proceed until we fixed something."
      This leads to a situation where it's pointless to listen to anyone who thinks that we should take precations before doing dangerous things since a scenarion were progress is possible isn't suggested.

    36. Re:Awesome! by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Every single book came down to: "See? SEE?! This is why you fucking scientists shouldn't do anything remotely exprimental!

      I fail to see how this even remotely applies to "Turbulence", "Sphere", "Disclosure" or "Congo".

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    37. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw it more as a case of "don't build your damn fences out of electrical wire and use thick perspex / toughened glass instead"

      Also, see SomePgmr. But even then, if you pissed off fatty, perspex fences, yes.
      A kid could go up and Moon a T-rex and he couldn't do a damn thing about it.

    38. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice comeback - though I obviously meant to type "noble".

      That said - most people miss the point of the Nobel prize, I just hope most scientists don't. Alfred Nobel made his money from an invention called dynamite. While it later found use as a weapon of war, that wasn't the purpose of his creation. Dynamite is derived from the Latin for "alive" - and it was created to SAVE rather than TAKE lives. Specifically dynamite was invented for mining purposes - the most common mining explosive prior to that was nitro-glycerine, dynamite is MUCH safer to work with and it saved millions of lives by reducing explosion-accidents in mining.
      Nobel firmly believed that science and knowledge are the greatest tools to advance a peaceful world with happier and longer-living people. His prize was intended to encourage scientists to do just that- produce knowledge for the good of mankind. This is also why the only NON-science prize is the peace prize. There is no Nobel-prize for business or economics (no really there isn't - the so-called Nobel-prize for economics was created much later by a bunch of Swiss bankers and has no affiliation with the fund Nobel left or the committee who awards the prizes from that fund).

      Nobel was a humanitarian. The irony is that the very life-saving invention that convinced him of science's great potential for humanity was also just a few decades later such a major part in racking up the body counts in the world wars. Nobel would not have been pleased...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    39. Re:Awesome! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's been pointed out the problems in Jurassic Park are not Man's Arrrogance in playing God but rather lousy zookeeping and corruption and sabotage.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    40. Re:Awesome! by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Makes him pretty hypocritical, doesn't it? The fact is that all science is done with money that is created in the 'for-profit' market, in the private sector. So his point is - take their money, but don't try and do something that can generate a return on that money.

      How about then do not take their money?

      --

      All science is done as a spin off from successful, wealthy, for profit economies.

    41. Re:Awesome! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Crichton was trying to make a point with his Jurassic Park novels. It was a cautionary tale about "the law of unintended consequences".

      So...this is just one of those unintended consequences.

      --
      No sig today...
    42. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not at all. Even if all money is made in a profit-based market - and thus the funding for science comes from there- that doesn't mean that science has to be done with a profit motive.

      Crichton is strongly opposed to privatization of science and believes it must be tax-funded as a public-good without a profit motive, he also strongly opposes laws that allow publicly funded research to be patented.
      Now that tax-money may have been made by profit-seeking companies originally, but the intermediary step prevents THEIR motivations from becoming the motivations of the SCIENTISTS.

      His point is science should be done for knowledge, if somebody can use that knowledge to make a profit that's fine- but that somebody must not be the scientist. I tend to agree.

      If you take that approach, then you can prevent the kind of stupid laws that want to turn universities into more "business-like" entities, if anything they are TOO MUCH like private enterprize already, they OUGHT to operate as a public service. Nobody ever asks if a neighbourhood playground makes MONEY - we just build them because it's better to live in a world with them than a world without them. That is what science should be. A neighbourhood playground.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    43. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultimately, the scientists went along with it. Had the scientists not gone along with it he would have had to figure out how to clone dinosaurs on his own. Would have easily taken the rest of his life and more.

    44. Re:Awesome! by Lotana · · Score: 1

      I will admit that I was referring to every single book of his that I have read. And to be fair, it was only three: The Terminal Man, Jurassic Park and The Lost World that followed this convention. Rising Sun was thinly covered up racism. Haven't read any others afterward.

    45. Re:Awesome! by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Given how Malcolm's self-righteous, philosophical bitching takes up quite a bit of the book, the whole novel comes off as preachy. The Lost World (sequel) just follows up with the same message.

    46. Re:Awesome! by Krneki · · Score: 3, Funny

      science that is applied for dubious rather than nobel goals

      Yeah, all scientists should have a nobel as a goal, not money

      This is why we need a troll-funny mod option.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    47. Re:Awesome! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I don't think Frankenstein is meant to be a cautionary tale - it's just a fun idea for a horror story. From what I remember reading in the foreword as a kid, Shelley wrote the story as part of a competition with her friends to see who could write the best horror story. It wasn't meant to be a warning to the world.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    48. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they were SGIs AFAIK

      remember the little girl going "this is Unix! I know this!"?
      What she was "using" on the screen was FM, the graphical file manager app for IRIX.
      (which btw was about as useful as fuck-all for actual filetree management, but pretty to look at)

    49. Re:Awesome! by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      So even if we had complete dinosaur DNA, that would not be enough to recreate them because they also need to receive certain chemicals at specific times during embryo growth? (which would come from the mother dinosaur or the composition of the egg, I presume).

    50. Re:Awesome! by Lotana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it must be tax-funded as a public-good without a profit motive

      His point is science should be done for knowledge, if somebody can use that knowledge to make a profit that's fine- but that somebody must not be the scientist.

      That would be ideal. Unfortunately that only works if people at large are happy to pay taxes to fund the science. In the real world we live in, majority of people bitch and whine about taxes that don't bring them direct, immediate benefits.

      Science investment brings with it incredible returns, but in incomprehensible forms that can only be put into practical inventions many years later. Majority of people would rather have more money in their pocket to spend on whatever they feel like at the moment, rather than being put towards something that they don't understand nor can imagine ever being useful. Another aspect is the anti-intellectual slant that seems to be quite prevalent.

      Thus taxes get cut, government science programs are on the top list to get slashed (Since majority of voters care about them the least and don't employ as many people), so researchers must turn towards profit-looking private investors to survive.

      Idealism just doesn't survive in the real world.

    51. Re:Awesome! by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought dinosaurs had never existed in the first place, and their bones had been planted into the soil by God to test our faith? Now you've got me all confused...

    52. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If it's any consolation, velociraptors were not that big and looked rather ridiculous

    53. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >That would be ideal. Unfortunately that only works if people at large are happy to pay taxes to fund the science. In the real world we live in, majority of people bitch and whine about taxes that don't bring them direct, immediate benefits.

      Sad, but true, not an insurmountable problem however. The difference is in education: teach people the value of knowledge, that all scientific research DO bring tangible benefits and that making it publicly available gives you as an individual a greater SHARE of that benefit. For example if all drug-research was done publicly, and made by whoever had a factory, without patents, then medicines would be MUCH, MUCH cheaper for all of us.

      >Science investment brings with it incredible returns, but in incomprehensible forms that can only be put into practical inventions many years later.

      Some generations have figured that out in the past, often the next one undid the progress, but like I said, it can be done.

      >Idealism just doesn't survive in the real world.
      This I radically don't agree with. Idealism is the only thing that changes the real world.
      To quote Richard Stallman: "If I had set out to say 'a mostly free operating system is okay' back when even that seemed impossible to most people, then we would not have had completely free operating systems available today. We have completely free operating systems because we set out to create nothing less than the ideal. Idealism is stating the ideal, and pushing for the ideal, even if you never quite get there, because every step you get closer is an improvement".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    54. Re:Awesome! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      That is such an understatement.

      - We've got a guy who started a football team, bought some expensive players, and then completely abandoned the club.
      - This is a man who said the CIA funded the greens exclusively so they could destroy the Australian economy.
      - This man's billboard is still standing in the area where he was going to run for election directly against the opposing treasurer who just won the world's best treasurer award. Not that he's running for this seat anymore.

      Between rebuilding the Titanic and now Jurassic Park it's amazing anyone gives him any airtime anymore.

    55. Re:Awesome! by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      that doesn't mean that science has to be done with a profit motive

      - no? So tell me then, what is the motivation if it is not for profit? So how do you measure scientific output, how do you figure what scientific paths to pursue?

      Do you understand why science developed mostly starting with the industrial revolution, which was the consequence of free market capitalism? Science doesn't exist in the vacuum, it never did. Without a strong economic base science remains the pursuit of lone individuals, the public is much less inclined to pay for pursuits of lone individuals than you think, I know I wouldn't in a non-industrial economy want any of my money to go towards anybody's idea of what 'science' is or what it may be.

      Why do you think science that exists today follows a certain path, how about all that funding, should it be thrown at all possible scenarios that search for scientific answers can take?

      Let's simplify, imagine this: there is no government spending on ANYTHING except science and everybody who works in the private sector is forced to pay taxes to support this structure and all scientific pursuits are nearly equally seen as justified, all pursuits are funded, well, maybe the funding depends on popularity of a field and maybe it depends on a number of 'scientific' papers that are published.

      If you don't immediately see a problem with this even most simplified scenario, if you don't understand that in this case science is simply one way to redistribute wealth from those who create, to those who do not want to create things people need, but instead they want to pursue their own gratification, this becomes a system of welfare with one department.

      Eventually everybody who is on welfare today, anybody receiving food stamps, anybody receiving EI, anybody receiving disability, military and other gov't contracts under the current system, they are all known as 'scientists' in that imaginary situation.

      Everybody is churning out papers, there is a huge market for writing scientifically sounding papers, the people who are paying for this with their productivity are being called 'the rich', who need to do more of their 'fair share'.

      Everything that government steals money for and distributes to is a convenient and safe place for people who do not want to work, who are too lazy or afraid to go steal themselves and they prefer a situation where threat of government violence would do it for them.

      ---

      Science does not live in vacuum, it didn't exist as a real process before industrial revolution for a reason - it wasn't providing almost anything of any value to 99% of people on this planet. The reason science is funded is because its output CAN be used to make profit, and profit is the measure stick by which the scarce resources are allocated, PROFIT IS MEASURE OF EFFICIENCY.

      If there is no profit motive, there is no way to measure efficiency and in government there is no reason to hunt for efficiency in the first place.

      You are going to say: efficiency is not important, well then you are going to crash the economy, that's what destroys it. Inefficient allocation of scarce resources because of government meddling - regulations, taxes, inflation. Inefficient allocation of credit because of government meddling - fake money that destroys credit, fake interest rates (price on money).

      Money is not pieces of paper, if you think it is, then ask yourself a question: what would you do with a ton of money on an island without any food?

      Money is the difference between production and consumption, it's created by the businessmen, by productivity of business. It's the difference between overproduction and under-consumption. Catch 10 fish, eat 1 and now you have 9 fish that you saved, that's your money, you can trade with it for other things that other people provide. Paper or other forms of currency is just a more convenient way to store the capital, to exchange and to do accounting. That's why gold is real money and fia

    56. Re:Awesome! by kramulous · · Score: 2

      I've meet Clive a few times. He is made out to be a crazy coot but the man is actually quite intelligent. He loves science. He has a *lot* of money and will be making a *lot* more in the near to medium future. He's happy to donate just for the possibility. He loves thinking big.

      --
      .
    57. Re:Awesome! by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      If you take that approach, then you can prevent the kind of stupid laws that want to turn universities into more "business-like" entities, if anything they are TOO MUCH like private enterprize already, they OUGHT to operate as a public service. Nobody ever asks if a neighbourhood playground makes MONEY - we just build them because it's better to live in a world with them than a world without them. That is what science should be. A neighbourhood playground.

      Good analogy. I like the cut of your jib, sir.

    58. Re:Awesome! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      It wasn't meant to be a warning to the world.

      Agreed. Now Cthulhu, on the other hand...

    59. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have read several of his books and came to the conclusion that either he is really afraid of all science and technology or just writing his books targeting the audience that are. Every single book came down to: "See? SEE?! This is why you fucking scientists shouldn't do anything remotely exprimental!!!"

      I doubt he had the latter attitude. He was an MD, if I recall.

    60. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >- no? So tell me then, what is the motivation if it is not for profit? So how do you measure scientific output, how do you figure what scientific paths to pursue?

      Knowledge, knowledge is the most valuable commodity in the universe, far moreso than profit - especially monetary profit. Besides which - all knowledge ultimately translates into profit anyway - but sometimes that takes centuries.
      That's exactly why profit should NOT be a motivator. Where is the profit in studying planets around stars 20 milion lightyears away ? It will never be profitable -but it could ultimately turn out to the most important thing humans ever did.

      >Do you understand why science developed mostly starting with the industrial revolution, which was the consequence of free market capitalism?
      You've got the cause and effect exactly BACKWARDS. Science can, and does, drive industry - but while industry can drive science it must NEVER be allowed to.
      For-profit science didn't EXIST during the industrial revolution, the idea of academic research being patentable, the idea of a PHD holding patents was unthinkable in those years (as it OUGHT to be today). Scientists produced knowledge, some of that knowledge was used by industrialists to create products, but a lot of it wasn't useful for products.
      In fact the vast majority of non-university scientists in the industrial revolution were priests ! Why ? Because priests had lots of free time, which they devoted to research, and no profit motive to detract from researching what was INTERESTING.
      By your logic one of the greatest scientific discoveries should never have been allowed to happen: Darwin's theory of evolution. Since Darwin was trained in theology and medicine, and never worked as either, and his research was absolutely useless to ANY industries that existed at the time (in fact it would take almost 70 years for the next piece of the puzzle - genetics to be discovered - and another 50 years before industries were able to make use of that combination for anything at all, it's only STARTING now).

      You're another typical "free market uber alles" capitalist who refuses to see even the POTENTIAL value in PUBLIC goods.

      Let me guess, you want eternal copyright too - because knowledge in the public domain has no value according to you.
      What value does Shakespeare have, what profit is there in Snow White - how can there be value in something that belongs to EVERYBODY ?

      Oops... idiot.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    61. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Newman!

    62. Re:Awesome! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    63. Re:Awesome! by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      I've always wished that they could bring back the moa.
      A lot of meat on that bird!
      And the eggs too! It would be like the Flintstones.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    64. Re:Awesome! by ACE209 · · Score: 2

      Notice how no one's actually tried to take over the world lately?

      No - just policing the world and snatching a few resources here and there.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    65. Re:Awesome! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You hear the remorse angle all the time, but... when was dynamite used as a weapon of war? As far as I can tell, it's only real use would be for the engineers - mining out an area for fortifications. And perhaps undermining enemy fortifications. It doesn't look like it would be all that effective in an anti-personnel role at all.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    66. Re:Awesome! by Christopher+Fritz · · Score: 3, Informative

      For those who, like I, were curious, here is an article about chicken with teeth:

      Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth.

      Some interesting lines:

      ... Matthew Harris of the University of Wisconsin noticed that the beak of a mutant chicken embryo he was examining had fallen off. Upon closer examination of the snubbed beak, he found tiny bumps and protuberances along its edge that looked like teeth--alligator teeth to be specific.

      The mutant chickens Harris studied bear a recessive trait dubbed talpid. This trait is lethal, meaning that such mutants are never born, but some incubate in eggs as long as 18 days.

      ... a chicken's underlying ability to grow teeth derives from a common ancestor with alligators--archosaurs--that is more recent than the one linking birds and mammals. Nevertheless, the underlying genetic mechanism that produces teeth in mice, alligators and mutant chickens remains the same.

      Exactly how the mutation causes the chickens to sprout teeth is unknown, Fallon notes, but a similar effect can be produced in normal chickens. Harris proved this by engineering a virus to mimic the molecular signals of the mutation and caused normal chickens to briefly develop teeth that were then reabsorbed into the beak.

    67. Re:Awesome! by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      The problem is that (unlike in Jurassic park), the people that take the risks aren't the people killed when things go wrong. At worst, they might loose the money they put into their company, but in most cases even that won't happen.

      What should be done is that the people that made the decision that ultimately killed someone should be charged with involuntary manslaughter AND the limited liability of the company itself should be removed. So any owners would have all of their assets spent compensating the victims or their families)

    68. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was George Orwell with 1984, but people are using it as a how to guide book now.

    69. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In natural growth, the chemical signals would have come from within the embryo itself, coded for by the genes the embryo carries. To greatly simplify, there might be, somewhere in the tangled mess of growth genes, a set which say "detect for marker chemical A here and if found, grow spinal column longer" plus another one which says "when growing hips, make a spot with marker A". In combination, those two would make a tail. If your organism mutates so that it no longer makes marker A, you can still trigger the tail growth system by artificially adding some marker A.

    70. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Insightful?

      One programmer for a system as complex as Jurassic Park looks like the biggest cost-cutting move ever represented on the silver screen.

      To draw a real world analogy, this is like blaming IT for the system outage. When the system only failed because managers decided they wanted to fire the guy that worked there for 20 years and built most of the systems himself. Because they wanted to replace him with someone with a fraction the experience because they can pay a fraction as much. After all, saving money is saving money! Damn the longterm consequences. PROFIT RIGHT NOW is all that matters!

      If you really believe what you said, I believe you have a shining career in upper management awaiting you.

    71. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >when was dynamite used as a weapon of war?

      Top of my head? Both the British and the Boers used it extensively in the South African war from 1900 to 1903. Partly for purposes of vandalism (e.g. blowing up railway lines and the like) and for attacks. It is quite effective for ambushing/laying traps. Not as effective as some other explosives that came later, but it worked if you did it right.

      Some of the Boers even used it to make rudimentary early hand-grenades. They would stuff explosives into a container, fill it with nails and debris, add a fuse, light it and chuck it into the Blockhouses the British built to defend things like railways from attacks. Often the explosive was just gunpowder but there are documented cases where it was a stick of dynamite.

      That said- I never suggested a remorse angle. I suggested the exact opposite: Nobel established his prize because he saw the value of scientific knowledge for saving and improving lives. Considering even the South African war only happened after his death - I am not sure he ever actually SAW his invention used as a weapon of war, so I doubt that the possibility would have influenced his decision - I believe he did what he did because I wanted to encourage and enable scientific research as a betterment for mankind.

      In other words - I don't think he was remorseful, I think he was altruistic.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    72. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or faster. Must go faster!

    73. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and for just as long, they've been held up as examples of why we shouldn't do this or that:

      Not necessarily. I think another way to look at it is: "We should be careful when we do this, because if we're not, here's what could happen..."

    74. Re:Awesome! by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      Crichton was trying to make a point with his Jurassic Park novels. It was a cautionary tale about "the law of unintended consequences".

      and as a result, some dude's building a dinosaur park. I bet Crichton never intended that.

    75. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Value can be measured in the real world, it's not that hard, either people want it and are willing to SPEND on it, and thus you can have profit and you can measure efficiency or people don't want it and then there is NO VALUE except for what is in your head.

      That's an economist's definition of value - it's not an accurate or complete picture. Knowing the movements of the planets is information we cannot use to make a product, we cannot sell it, we cannot make anything out of it, if we ever can it won't be for probably hundreds of years - yet it DOES have value.
      Any and ALL knowledge have value. In fact, the value of it is INFINITE since knowledge cannot be used-up. It's a true post-scarcity supply.
      Economists measure that value as "zero" - but that's because economists are using a too limited view.

      >If you are not seeing this, then all you are talking about is mental masturbation, sure sure, you can have your mental masturbation, you can have your mental orgasm even because you believe that you have some knowledge that wasn't there previously, but if this knowledge never translates into anything that the economy actually is willing to pay for with profits, then its purely irrelevant, it was no more relevant than any other form of entertainment.

      That kind of view is the antithesis of human progress. All knowledge has infinite value just by existing.

      >My argument is that the basic science is done in the private sector as long as there is no government stealing money from the private sector, and it's done as a side effect of people searching for profit.

      If we limit science to that which has the potential for profit (or at least the currently VISIBLE potential for profit) we destroy it, not least because it isn't science AT ALL unless the results are freely available. It's only science WHEN it is public domain, until then - it's not science.
      Fundamental principle of the scientific method is peer-review, public scrutiny and openness - directly contradictory with a profit motive.

      >Before 1913 there were no income taxes, there were no corporate taxes, there were no payroll taxes, there were no capital gains taxes, no taxes on dividends, no taxes on rent, no taxes on PRODUCTIVITY

      Not only an idiot, an idiot who thinks America is the world. Read the bible, the first version of income taxes will be found the very first chapter of Kings I. 4000 years ago the governments charged taxes. Most of the Industrial-age scientific revolution came from Britain, not America and that WAS a welfare state. Most scientists were not employed by industry but by the church or by TAX-FUNDED academia (which Britain had, had for hundreds of years by then). The idea of tax-funded academic research was already WELL ESTABLISHED when it gave us Isaac Newton in the 1600's !

      >But how necessary is it to have government stealing money from the private sector to fund research into such things, what is the efficiency of this model?
      It takes something of fixed/limited value to buy something of infinite value that only gets MORE valuable the bigger the supply becomes and MORE valuable the more people have access to it. It's the greatest deal in the world, the ultimate investment.

      >It is the institutions that are concerned with education that allow the environment to develop that is necessary to do scientific research, including basic sciences.

      Cause and effect reversed - AGAIN. It's institutions that are concerned with research that double as the best training grounds for other researchers. That should be the total extent of university education: training the next generation of scientists. Everybody who does not WANT to be a scientist should NOT get a degree, but go to some or other form of trade school.

      >You are completely wrong, putting the cart ahead of a horse, thinking that the education and science came before the free market capitalist looking for profit.
      The first example of a University was Plato's academy, established in 387BC, it charged no admissi

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    76. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Ad Hominem fallacy.

      What kind of person Crichton is has NO bearing on whether or not he is right about something or not.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    77. Re:Awesome! by Rei · · Score: 2

      Let me add a couple more:

      The main message of "Airframe" was "The media is evil lying scum"
      The main message of "The Andromeda Strain" was "Scientists shouldn't do anything experimental and I am an idiot when it comes to biology."

      --
      "... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful, ..."
    78. Re:Awesome! by M8e · · Score: 2

      Yes, dinosaurs have never existed and any fossils is just to test our faith.

      DrXym meant dragons and inucorns. Dragons did exist, the bible says so, But there is no bones or fossils after them.

    79. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, a use for these Japanese robots.

    80. Re:Awesome! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The atom bomb was (and is) a good thing. Notice how no one's actually tried to take over the world lately?

      Uh no, I really haven't noticed that. I have noticed a lot of bad behavior from the nations that have nuclear weapons, though. I've noticed that the USA has military bases practically everywhere, too, and seems to have plans to have them everywhere else as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    81. Re:Awesome! by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 1

      Rei didn't suggest that the kind of person Crichton is has anything to do with whether he's right. He suggested it has something to do with whether his statements are worthy of debate.

    82. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Things that start with "let me guess" are not "statements", they are deductions stated with teh pre-acknowledged admission that they are guesses and could be wrong.

      I see no reason to apologize for guessing wrong when I clearly STATED it was just a guess.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    83. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      The only thing that determines whether something is worthy of debate is the likelihood of it being right. NOT the source of the statement, but the MERIT of the statement.

      If anything this was an ad hominem attack taken to an even worse than usual level.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    84. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not the least interested in profit when I do science. All my research is centered around world domination.

    85. Re:Awesome! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Sure, but who's to say if the damaged DNA reconstruction will get the growth hormone cycle exactly right?

    86. Re:Awesome! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      There is no need to characterize him as such. He was a thief, plain and simple. He failed to respect natural rights, and violence resulted.

    87. Re:Awesome! by Rei · · Score: 2

      The real goal would be twofold: the historic and the modern.

      From the historic side, chemicals have been recovered from dinosaur bones, not just mineralization. While DNA recovery is unlikely, one can identify the remains of proteins and other compounds and get a sense of what chemicals the dinosaurs were producing and in what quantities. The cellular structures of some dinosaur bone and even soft tissue is known and inferences can be made thusly about how different genes were being expressed on the microscopic scale. And of course we have a pretty good sense of how they were expressed on the macroscopic scale, in particular regarding bone and what we can infer from them about tendon and muscle.

      From the modern side, one can sequence as diverse of a range of avian clades as possible. You can then reverse-populate a genetic tree, getting a good sense of out what is old and what is a modern mutation. This should enable backpopulating avians back to their latest genetic bottleneck. You won't be able to pin down a single specific genome, and a number of what you come out with as "possibilities" won't have been the actuality, while some actual genes may have since been altogether lost, but you should be able to figure out a lot. You could likewise use data from reptiles, in particular crocodilians, to try to infer some pre-dinosaur genetic datapoints which you could blend with your avian results to narrow down the possibiltiies or add more genetic diversity. Lastly, you have the option of reactivating genes that have been clearly broken by obvious mutation sequences if you feel it necessary and if the data suggests that there's a chance they might have been active in the past. Combining the two concepts, for example, if your inference from birds comes up with a broken gene at their bottleneck and your inference from reptiles comes up with a working gene at its bottleneck, then the gene broke at some point between when crocodilians branched off from what later became the dinosaurs, and when birds branched off from the raptors. So not only do you have the option of using or not using the gene, but you have the option of using it for older dinosaur species you're trying to recreate and not using it for newer species.

      Combining this all, you can basically mix the range of known possible genes with the desired expression patterns of those genes and their known family trees to try to recreate species from the past. Perfection? Far from it. But I bet a well-funded project could get some interesting results.

      --
      "... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful, ..."
    88. Re:Awesome! by Rei · · Score: 1

      I read that as "A kid could go up to the moon on a T-rex" and thought for a minute that Palmer has been chatting with Musk, billionaire-to-billionare, about trying to create the Most Awesome Thing Ever(TM).

      --
      "... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful, ..."
    89. Re:Awesome! by Rei · · Score: 2

      There's no reason one has to pay attention to the views of anyone. If they're going to be an arse, they deserve any "being ignored" that they get.

      --
      "... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful, ..."
    90. Re:Awesome! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You really need to learn to read the author's forwards and afterwards in his books.

      Crichton always spells out his view of science and technology and both how productive and cool they can be and how dangerous as well.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    91. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Oh you have the right to ignore them, that doesn't make them wrong however. A lot of people like hsi books, and think they have good things to say that are worth listening to.
      Whether he is a nice person or not does not REDUCE how worthy his books' messages are.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    92. Re:Awesome! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Which is funny, because we don't really have problems handling large animals in zoos today. The dinosaur enclosures were built by retarded hippies. Not only could you not see them most of the time (as it was built more like a wildlife refuge than a zoo), but the human areas were separated from the predator areas by ACTIVE defenses (electric fences). They could have put the safari ride on an elevated track, so you could see them from above, or put them in a tunnel with three foot thick polycarbonate glass, or just had a habitat that was clear of visibility obstructions with a wide moat and a sheer cliff on the human side like modern zoos. People don't often worry about tigers or apes escaping, either of which are a lot smarter than any lizard from 64+ million years ago.

      Also, hand-held weapons are easily able to take out big game today. You could certainly kill a T-rex with a well placed shot from a 357. Nevermind using an elephant gun, which should have been standard equipment for the "guides".

    93. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      First of all, I was privately educated. Secondly - maybe you should clarify which statement exactly you are referring to - because clearly we aren't talking about the same one, oh and thirdly - I'm not American, so practically nothing you assume about me is likely to be correct.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    94. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, as other people mentioned, the anatomy of dromeosaurs (Velociraptor and its relatives) is most similar to the oldest birds, and several species of dromeosaurs have been found with feathers preserved, including really spectacular examples such as Microraptor , which even have *flight* feathers (i.e. asymmetric, aerodynamically-shaped feathers that could generate lift -- probably as a glider).

      If this interpretation is correct, then you can think of birds as highly-modified dinosaurs in the same sense that whales are mammals. Whales are pretty different from "typical" land-dwelling mammal anatomy because whales have adapted to swim in the sea. Even so, they don't stop being mammals even though they are pretty different ones. Likewise, birds are pretty atypical dinosaurs because most birds have been modified for flight.

      Most other dinosaurs had anatomy that doesn't look very bird-like. This makes more sense if you realize that nobody is claiming all dinosaurs transformed into birds. It's more like all the branches on the huge, diverse dinosaur tree became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period, except for one little twig that survived and then diversified into the modern birds and persists to the present day. Yeah, big, toothy, quadrupedal plant-eating dinosaurs don't exactly look like birds, but those aren't the ones that make the connection. It's when you look at a skeleton of Velociraptor and a skeleton of the oldest fossil birds (e.g., Archaeopteryx) that you realize how freakishly similar they really are.

      To use the mammal analogy again, it would be a bit like a situation if all mammals besides whales were extinct. At first glance it wouldn't look like there should be any connection between an ocean-going creature and a bunch of extinct land mammals that don't even have fins. "Completely different creatures", people would say. Then you start finding fossils that combine the supposedly distinct groups, and the distinctions become very blurry. We started out with a list of many anatomical features that distinguished birds and dinosaurs. For example, 50 years a furcula (wishbone) was thought to be unique to birds, but we now know even T. rex itself has one of those. After many years of study, there's hardly anything left to distinguish these two groups anymore. Not even feathers are unique to birds.

    95. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you can't even understand your own words that you put down, you can't understand what you are supposed to be apologizing for right now in order at least to be perceived as somebody that can be reasoned with, wherever you are 'educated' doesn't matter, what matters is that it didn't help you.

    96. Re:Awesome! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. From NON NUCLEAR NATIONS. If those nations had nukes, they could defend themselves. If those nations were part of a coalition of small nations that collectively owned nukes, they could defend themselves. But they aren't, so they get the shit freed out of them by the West whenever it is convenient for the sociopaths in power to do so.

    97. Re:Awesome! by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      Dragons did exist, the bible says so, But there is no bones or fossils after them.

      He probably used those to make the dinosaur bones.

    98. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and a whole lot of people and animals are their sister's fathers. It's a twisted world ;-)

    99. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Income Tax was introduced by Pitt the younger as a temporary measure to help finance the Napoleonic Wars.
      Most government revenue came from duties of various kinds - consumption taxes.

      Newton's best scientific work was behind him by the time he was given the government job of Master of the Royal Mint.

      learn2history.jpg

    100. Re:Awesome! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You have normalcy bias, then. You see the way things are now, and assume that is the natural order. The USA will never go to war with a nuclear armed nation, which rules out large scale wars that significantly deplete the population. This is why deaths from war have dropped by 1-2 orders of magnitude since the advent of nuclear weaponry. If nukes hadn't been invented, you can bet that WWII would have lasted for 10 more years as we went to war with the USSR, and potentially China. Not a fun time, as hundreds of millions would have died in that sort of conflict. But Russian and Chinese hands were stayed by our nuclear deterrent, and we had little proxy wars instead.

    101. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also why the only NON-science prize is the peace prize..

      There is also literature.

      Nobel was a humanitarian. The irony is that the very life-saving invention that convinced him of science's great potential for humanity was also just a few decades later such a major part in racking up the body counts in the world wars. Nobel would not have been pleased...

      It was used for that long before he died. I believe that is one of the reasons for creating the prizes, to be remembered as a man of peace, not as a weapon developer.

    102. Re:Awesome! by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for you clear and in depth explanation.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    103. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swiss = Swedish.

      Also, Nobel wasn't quite the pacifist, he did quite a bit of military stuff as well. For example, "Bofors' most famous owner was Alfred Nobel, who owned the company from 1894 until his death in December 1896. Nobel played the key role in reshaping the former iron and steel producer to a modern cannon manufacturer and chemical industry participant." [Wikipedia]

    104. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It clearly shows that you shouldn't write about something you don't want. Someone might read it and think "Hey, great idea, let's do it!"
      Maybe Clive Palmer has read "Manna" ...

    105. Re:Awesome! by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      The idea that birds came from dinosaurs is well accepted. The latest idea however is that birds ARE dinosaurs! In other words, the dinosaur line didn't die out, birds are their DIRECT decendants which continue the line today.

    106. Re:Awesome! by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's thinking of them as intended consequences.

    107. Re:Awesome! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      "Some generations have figured that out in the past, often the next one undid the progress, but like I said, it can be done."

      If so then they must have been too self absorbed in their own progress to teach their children. Anyway... care to name those generations?

    108. Re:Awesome! by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...but... when was dynamite used as a weapon of war?

      Well, it sure was abpopular weapon for Clint Eastwood in some of his spaghetti westerns....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    109. Re:Awesome! by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Knowledge, knowledge is the most valuable commodity in the universe, far moreso than profit - especially monetary profit.

      But that isn't gonna pay any bills, let you go on a great vacation trip, nor get you laid.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    110. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hes going to be very disappointed when he get's a Love bird. They allready have larger parrots in Oz.

    111. Re:Awesome! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      At worst, they might lose the money they put into their company...

      There...FTFY....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    112. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Informative

      >But that isn't gonna pay any bills, let you go on a great vacation trip, nor get you laid.....

      Knowlege creates all the means by which bills can be paid, and indeed the ability to create bills in the first place. Knowledge lets you know where to go on vacation, why you may want to go there, and why it's good to take vacations. And knowledge of sex is the difference between bad and good lovers - good lovers most certainly DO get laid more often.

      Your point exactly ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    113. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, mixed up stories ... maybe a MobileWorks manager has read "Manna"; Clive Palmer has read "Jurassic Park".
      (And that stupid "Slashdot wait" doesn't even allow to correct myself immediately!)

    114. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have really tried to keep this posting more concise.
      I disagree with quite a few of your viewpoints and I see some logical fallacies, but I didn't even make it to the end because you come off as someone who is just wallowing in his own intellectual vanity.

      Obviously this very comment doesn't add anything to the discussion, and I apologise for that plus the ad hominem nature of this reply, but in practise the speech you just let off from the top of your soap box isn't more productive either.

    115. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was earlier than that. Some ancient Chinese emperor tried it in 10 AD. Lasted only 13 years but hey it existed.

      Also of interesting note, the opponents of Pitt the younger's income tax wanted the records of the tax existing burned. That tells me there might have been other cases of income taxes earlier history, but their records simply have been destroyed by its opponents, just so they can later make claims that "we never had an income tax" (a stone's throw away from "we have always been at war with Eastasia")

      learn2wiki.jpg

    116. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whooosh

    117. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, are you blaming somebody for your lack of patience and inability to finish reading a comment? Ha ha ha ha ha!

    118. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Most recently, the 1960's one of the most academic and scientifically progressive eras in American History.
      Granted the real source of that drive was the urge to outdo Russia - but it put a man on the moon, and all the science and technology needed for one of the most incredible feats of engineering ever achieved grew from that.
      Along the way thousands of other scientific advancements were made by building on pieces created for that goal, and still other ideas pursued towards that goal which proved to be useless for it would later turn out to be very valuable for other work.

      It was in this same period that radio astronomy first became big - and one of it's first major discoveries was made by a female Grad Student studying reams of paper, we call them pulsars. We still don't know for sure what a pulsar is ! We have one theory that at least makes sense, but zero proof for it. We know they exist, we have no idea what they are. But knowing they exist is one step toward finding out what they are.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    119. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like to rip on Stallman, but he sticks to his guns and I like that quote.

    120. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that isn't gonna pay any bills, let you go on a great vacation trip, nor get you laid.....

      ... so you're implying that the only way for you to get laid is if profits are involved?

    121. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the only bolded words in my previous comment are "in practise".

      I'm a member of a debaters club, we come together weekly for 1.5-2 hours to train rethorics and reasoning (among others). Usually when someone runs off with a speech like that, he knows that he's talking crap, but hopes it works on impressionable people.
      Again, in practise he could make his point much more well received by cropping out ad absurdum analogies (useful if employed correctly, but silly in this case), pathos insinuation and ironing out the logical fallacies. Instead he looks like a redheaded child I'm not at all inclined to bother with.

    122. Re:Awesome! by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      ... Neuman!

    123. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Crichton was trying to make a point with his Jurassic Park novels.

      The relevant word here is "trying". As we can see, he failed hard. Dinosaurs are just too cool to be someone's wimpy cautionary tale.

    124. Re:Awesome! by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Don't hold your breath. Clive Palmer has a long history of shooting his mouth off about grandiose schemes, then not following through with any action.

      Damn! I was hoping he might go for a cruise on the Titanic.

      Or get chased by a Tyrannosaurus.

      Either will do.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    125. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't think that is an improvement over the bad old days of total war, you need to get some perspective.

    126. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Read the forewords and author's notes as well and you'll see a very different point of view: science for PROFIT is extremely risky.

      But ultimately, that's why we do science. Because we expect to get more out of the act than we put in. Profit is a narrow label for a more general motivation. Whether it be money, fame, doing something that will benefit others, or just the feeling of having completed a tough puzzle or a hard project, there's a profit to doing science.

      Obviously, if you have a narrow laser focus on the next quarters financials and your cranky board of directors, you are more likely to take morally slippery actions than someone who takes a longer view and doesn't have fiscal obligations to meet.

      But the author's distinction of "science for profit" is an artificial one. It doesn't increase risk to have financial motivations over other motivations.

    127. Re:Awesome! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      That Noah sure was groovy. Didn't bother with the dinosaurs but brought the head lice, crabs, ticks, mosquitoes and all the other little parasites we're so fond off.

      And they say *Job* had a hard time...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    128. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      His point is science should be done for knowledge, if somebody can use that knowledge to make a profit that's fine- but that somebody must not be the scientist. I tend to agree.

      What's the point of creating a potentially highly productive class and then neutering their ability to profit from their actions? Frankly, I think we'll find that the above attitude will harm scientific progress greatly over the coming decades.

      The scientists will go on to do unproductive but sciency stuff while the parasites (who use that knowledge or perhaps merely the theater of that activity to make profit) will continue to block off avenues for expression of scientific research (IP reinforcement and so on).

    129. Re:Awesome! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      So tell me then, what is the motivation if it is not for profit? So how do you measure scientific output, how do you figure what scientific paths to pursue?

      We're not Ferengi.

      A lot of things worth doing aren't profitable. Building a telescope back in the 1600's and staring into the night sky is not the sort of thing that could have been translated into a product - does that mean that we should have never studied astronomy? The American Civil War definitely wasn't won for profits - does that mean we should still have slavery? Most people who get it on with somebody don't get paid to do so - should the only sex involve prostitution? Most people who have children don't do that for money either - how is there a future generation without that? If I see a guy lying in the gutter badly beaten, should I demand payment before taking the time to call an ambulance?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    130. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jurassic Park wasn't so much about "leave the knowledge alone forever" as it was about "don't make unfounded assumptions about things you can't possibly know".

      The fundamental problem with the park wasn't that they'll never be able to know how to keep dinosaurs penned up safely, it was that people would have to die for that knowledge and an amusement park wasn't worth that kind of sacrifice.

    131. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't base any decision on shit an a-hole like crichton was trying to say. he was a idiot who wrote some kind of entertaining novels.

    132. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 0

      Science investment brings with it incredible returns, but in incomprehensible forms that can only be put into practical inventions many years later.

      Let's play a game. You tell me research that actually has the above feature and which actually generated "incredible returns" and I'll tell you the near future return of that research that justified it. It's a pernicious myth that science doesn't and shouldn't have near future return. Else you're just engaging in religious hoping.

      Basically, I see no reason that scientists should be different from anyone else. They should be useful in the near term future just like everyone else. I see the above myth merely being used to rationalize inactivity, that is, not doing anything. "We'll be productive a few centuries from now when you are all safety dead and unable to complain. You'll see!"

      For example, what's the point of the huge fusion reactors built by researchers today (such as ITER)? It's nowhere near commercial and one doesn't need to chuck that kind of money in just to get fusion research on that scale. Even the future potential return could be done just as easily in the future when it can readily exploited rather than now when nobody has a clue what fusion technologies will actually work out. It's just a vast waste of money with no conceivable advantage over doing the research later.

      Space science is another such endeavor. It's been used as rationalization for some of the most ridiculously overpriced infrastructure (the International Space Station) ever built. Even the unmanned space programs have devolved into building new overpriced widgets rather than actual space science.

      In summary, I believe we have a dangerous and harmful myth, the idea that science doesn't have to produce or do anything, yet it still will somehow benefit us centuries from now when all accountability is safely lost. I think that is a huge scam that will harm our scientific progress for generations to come.

    133. Re:Awesome! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Crichton was trying to make money with his Jurassic Park novels.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    134. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was to "hate this hacker crap".

    135. Re:Awesome! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      There aren't many koalas and dingos who escaped to the other continents, so we should be OK.

      If not, send the Spanish King and his goons, they love the big guns.

    136. Re:Awesome! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No problem. I/we/she/whatever knows UNIX! ;D

      "fsn" in IRIX was awesome. Useless, and the slowest way to navigate a file system ever invented, but awesome.

      The regular desktop in IRIX had a few good things too, which no one has replicated yet. Like all icons and previews being scalable, and there being a per-window slide wheel for adjusting the size. Or a split-pane for web/ftp access, where you could see a HTML rendering in one pane, and all the elements as regular icons in the other, supporting drag/drop.

    137. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, quoting Richard Stallman in the whole realist vs idealist debate wasn't the best maneuver.

    138. Re:Awesome! by scubamage · · Score: 1

      I believe that the ordinance in a bangalore mine was dynamite as well. Granted this was less a weapon and more a utilitarian item used by combat engineers to breach obstacles while avoiding fire.

    139. Re:Awesome! by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      This is completely correct. Taken as a whole, his ouvre is entirely anti progress, anti scientists, and anti anything with any potential to change the status quo. it is tiny, scared writing, appealing to easy fears.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    140. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      That's an economist's definition of value - it's not an accurate or complete picture.

      It's more accurate and complete than any picture you came up with.

      If we limit science to that which has the potential for profit (or at least the currently VISIBLE potential for profit) we destroy it, not least because it isn't science AT ALL unless the results are freely available. It's only science WHEN it is public domain, until then - it's not science.

      Look at the definition of science sometime. Your claim is nowhere to be seen in that definition. There's a good reason why. You are simply wrong here.

      I've also posted on the pathology of believing that science shouldn't have short term value. Bottom line is that a) I don't think you can come up with an example of science that had long term gain without short term gain (which in itself, indicates you have a non-scientific attitude towards science!), and b) the myth is just used mainly to rationalize remarkably bad wastes of time, effort, and public funds.

      Any and ALL knowledge have value. In fact, the value of it is INFINITE since knowledge cannot be used-up. It's a true post-scarcity supply. Economists measure that value as "zero" - but that's because economists are using a too limited view.

      No, it's because no one is willing to spend their own money for this "infinite value" good. That gives us a good idea of the level of bullshit you're spreading here. If science truly were of infinite value to us, then we would all without exclusion devote all of our collective efforts to scientific discovery and knowledge. It isn't so we don't.

      Economists have already figured out how to price knowledge, and it just doesn't have infinite value simply because existing in the far future isn't of much value to us in the present.

      Now maybe you really do treat scientific knowledge as an infinite value good, but if so, I doubt you'd have posted the above. The above post doesn't encourage us to endeavor more scientifically and it takes your personal time away from scientific effort. In other words, your post has infinite negative value. That strikes me as an indication you don't really believe your bullshit either.

    141. Re:Awesome! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The USA will never go to war with a nuclear armed nation, which rules out large scale wars that significantly deplete the population.

      I didn't say that we would, so there's really no point to your comment. Instead, we have proxy wars with other nuclear nations in other countries, and carve up the globe between us. When the nuclear nations effectively own all the other countries some other plan for keeping the inconvenient down will be adopted, like perhaps world government. There's plenty of opportunity in between here and there, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    142. Re:Awesome! by citylivin · · Score: 1

      "The atom bomb was (and is) a good thing. Notice how no one's actually tried to take over the world lately? "

      You just say that because one hasn't exploded near you yet. No "nation state" has tried to take over "the world", its true. However corporations, globalization and international bankers, even if they are not nation states, have linked the world financial system so closely together that they may as well be thought of at least trying to take over the world.

      Just because people do it with a little more finesse, and it is done in back rooms instead of the battlefield doesn;t make it any less evil.

      I am sure that the world has not seen the last of nuclear war. That dead hand thing still could be active in russia, just a few corroded wires away from making your statement a horrible cliche of pre world war 3 thinking.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    143. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      >No, it's because no one is willing to spend their own money for this "infinite value" good

      I am. The day my government STOPS allocating a share of my taxes to university subsidies and research grants is the day I will revolt against taxes, same goes for welfare programs.
      I owe my success to two things - hard work, and privilege. I had privilege. And privilege is a debt, debts must be paid. Welfare isn't TAKEN from me, it's paying my debt - by taking some of the results of my privilege and using it to provide privilege to those who don't have it. A debt that is paid forward. Paying Forward: still the single best idea Benjamin Franklin ever had.
      In short: speak for yourself.

      >That gives us a good idea of the level of bullshit you're spreading here. If science truly were of infinite value to us, then we would all without exclusion devote all of our collective efforts to scientific discovery and knowledge. It isn't so we don't.

      That's argument by pushing to the absurd - a fallacy. And the reasoning is flawed. Just because something has infinite value, doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing that does, or that it's value is interchangeable with all that does - or more importantly all that is neccesities.
      Knowledge however is what all other value is built on, and it's usually not POSSIBLE to predict which knowledge will be most valueable ahead of time - any more than it's possible to predict which starving artist is creating paintings that will, after his death, sell for millions.
      We can't tell the Van Gogh from the idiots until a century later- what makes you think we can truly evaluate the value of any other knowledge ?

      Knowledge lets us create value, it increases the availability and reduces neccesity of all other things - that is important, but it doesn't do so instantly, hence we need to devote some, perhaps most, resources to other needs - but the idea that we should only pursue such research as we can see a profitable cause for is ... er... stupid.

      Why then do we fund astronomy ? Anything beyond the engineering needed to plant satelites have ZERO profitable returns for the foreseable future. Why do we fund (most) biology ? What monetary value is there in knowing that Elephants are related to Mannatees ?
      And why is it that the second largest scientific breakthroughs of the entire 20th century was made by it's LEAST capitalist nation ?

      Clearly science exists JUST as well in socialism as in capitalism - just as long as the science itself is allowed to NOT be capitalist.
      If you do research for profit, then there is value in secrecy - and secrecy is the OPPOSITE of the value of science.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    144. Re:Awesome! by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      I've meet Clive a few times. He is made out to be a crazy coot but the man is actually quite intelligent. He loves science. He has a *lot* of money and will be making a *lot* more in the near to medium future. He's happy to donate just for the possibility. He loves thinking big.

      So what's next for him? A giant hydrogen-powered dirigible to cruise the continent for chicks?

    145. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...And Tolkien was trying to make a point with his work.

      Shall we banish forever the forging of rings, because fiction is clearly reality in every case imaginable?

    146. Re:Awesome! by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      That's the point he was trying to make. The point he actually made was: dinosaurs, awesome.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    147. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the value of it is INFINITE since knowledge cannot be used-up.

      While it cannot be "used up" in the usual sense, it can be lost due to lack of interest. Basically, there's only so much information which a single person can hold in its head. By corrolary, there's also a limited amount of information to be found in the heads of humanity as a whole; moreover much of that information is more or less the same in different brains. Then there's the written/stored information, but that effectively only exists if it is found. Otherwise it could as well not exist at all.

      Now you may say that modern technology helps with searching information, but even Google can only go so far (and that would be true even if all knowledge were accessible in the web). On one hand, if nobody searches for the information, chances are high that nobody finds it. And if nobody knows that the information is there in the first place, nobody will search for it. The same is true if it is known that the information is there, but nobody is interested in it. On the other hand, even if you search for it, you rarely go e.g. to the 37th page of search results. So unless it's on one of the first pages of some searches, it again effectively doesn't exist at all.

      Moreover, information may get lost. People forget stuff, libraries can burn down, data on computers may be accidentally erased, destroyed in a hardware failure, etc. Backups and distributed data help, but are no complete protection. Eventually each and every piece of information will get lost.

      In addition, information that is still there may become inaccessible because other information is missing which would be needed to understand that information. Examples include information stored in formats/encodings which are no longer known, or the knowledge to understand it is no longer available (for example, you won't understand a sentence like "The kernel of this mapping has dimension 1" unless you have sufficient understanding of the mathematics this sentence belongs to; if that understanding would ever get lost, nobody in the world would any more be able to understand this sentence).

      Or in short, you can only make limited use of any information out there (this includes the use of just enjoying it), therefore any information out there can only have limited value.

    148. Re:Awesome! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      While Crichton may have put it in terms of profit motive, the themes in his book actually tend to be centered around greed, which is not the same thing.

      However, whether Crichton mentions it or not, a theme that is just as common in his books (though not universal), and goes all the way back to The Andromeda Strain, is: "Be careful when you mess with Mother Nature, because living things have a knack for escaping their cages."

      And I think that is one of his more prophetic themes, because we have actually SEEN it happen, again and again, from invasive species to biology lab breaches to GMO crops.

      Don't let anybody try to tell you otherwise: those recent virulent-flu experiments were dangerous beyond the capabilities of the containment facilities in which they occurred. They should never have been allowed... but of course, authorities didn't hear about them until they were a fait accompli.

    149. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you. At the book store where I work, we keep Crichton in a seperate section next to Science Fiction. I tell folks that it's the Anti-Science Fiction section.
        Forewords can say what they will; a whole lot of his books revolve around "Don't poke that! You don't know what it is! You'll be sorry!" which is a very anti-science attitude, no matter what he says elsewhere.
        And the less said about State of Fear, the better.

    150. Re:Awesome! by sootman · · Score: 1

      > Doesn't it come across as "never do anything because
      > there might be unintended consequences", though?

      To me it comes across as "don't try to do too much, too fast." Why would your first thought be "Let me make a couple hundred of these creatures that are OBVIOUSLY potentially dangerous" they weigh many tons and/or are all muscle and claw" when it should be "let me make a couple small ones and see what happens over the course of a few years"? The intro to the book warns of the dangers of gaining power too easily. Stand on the shoulders of giants, sure, but take your time, learn, and think.

      > the point of unintended consequences is you can't predict
      > whether anything you do will have bad ones or not.

      Right. So basic common sense should tell you to limit your exposure to danger. Growing a dinosaur the size of a dog or cow = a great idea. A couple dozen T-Rexs and Raptors, all at once, with no experience... not so much.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    151. Re:Awesome! by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I would add a caveat. Most logical people are generally willing to pay taxes ( and I count myself, a generally harsh anti-tax advocate, in this group) to advance science and the public good if they had any sort of guarantee that it wouldn't simply be wasted/given to some connected group or individual/pumped into a slush fund.
      As an example, my father, a retired aerospace engineer, has weekly lunches with a group of retired cops/firemen/civil servants. My father's around 70, they're around 60.
      Guess who takes four vacations a year paid by pensions, and who doesn't. I'll give you a hint, it's not the engineer.

    152. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took it as "never do anything becuase there might be dinosaurs"

    153. Re:Awesome! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Even the future potential return could be done just as easily in the future when it can readily exploited rather than now when nobody has a clue what fusion technologies will actually work out."

      This is patent (no pun intended) nonsense.

      Um... excuse me... but you have to DO THE RESEARCH first, to find out which fusion technologies will work, before you can put money into the winner(s).

      It just doesn't work the other way around.

    154. Re:Awesome! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      " it is tiny, scared writing, appealing to easy fears."

      Please give me an example of a horror story that has not been.

      But aside from the fact that these are essentially HORROR STORIES, INTENDED TO SCARE -- which is what horror stories do, if they're any good -- Crichton is not anti-science. It is easy to believe he is... if you never read his forewords or afterwords.

    155. Re:Awesome! by sootman · · Score: 1

      Rats... missed some parentheses. Should be...

      Why would your first thought be "Let me make a couple hundred of these creatures that are OBVIOUSLY potentially dangerous" (they weigh many tons and/or are all muscle and claw) when it should be...

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    156. Re:Awesome! by blitz9 · · Score: 1

      anytime really dna can be extracted from bones see- http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/lowbandwidth/INT_ancient_dna.html

    157. Re:Awesome! by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

      Shut up Debbie Downers. We can't have anything cool in this world because of people like you applying fictional pretense to real life.

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    158. Re:Awesome! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In the real world we live in, majority of people bitch and whine about taxes that don't bring them direct, immediate benefits.

      Odd, then, that the only people I hear complaining about their money going to NASA are tea partiers and anti-tax Libertarians; you know, the extremely short sighted, selfish, sociopathic dumbasses. Everybody else thinks it's pretty damned cool that we have robots on Mars and a telescope in outer space.

      Taxes I hear people bitching about is when tax money goes to bridges to nowhere and grants to big corporations. Now, local taxes, yeah people bitch about them (I do!), but local taxes don't fund science.

    159. Re:Awesome! by tsmithnj · · Score: 2

      The Toronto Raptors also look ridiculous....

    160. Re:Awesome! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      And knowledge of sex is the difference between bad and good lovers - good lovers most certainly DO get laid more often.

      Well, not necessarily....you need to know how to read, and manipulate women...to get them into bed, regardless of how good your are IN bed. Depends if you want sex over and over with the same woman (boring)...or want to bag and tag as many as possible, for variety.

      If you understand the female mentality for what they (in general) are really looking for....it isn't that difficult, especially in this age with a more relaxed morally casual attitude, to get them to go out with you and sleep with you. You just gotta know what they want, and feed it back to them...that is the knowledge you need. If you have THAT, then you will get enough experience to get good at the sex act itself...remember, practice makes perfect!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    161. Re:Awesome! by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      I believe he did what he did because I wanted to encourage and enable scientific research as a betterment for mankind

      Ha! Caught you time-traveller!

      Sorry for doing the same joke twice but I had to because he told me to.

      --
      ics
    162. Re:Awesome! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 2

      Everything is scary in Utah.

    163. Re:Awesome! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      So tell me then, what is the motivation if it is not for profit?

      I don't think you belong on a nerd site. A nerd wouldn't be asking that question. Money is tnot the end-all and be-all. People don't spend incredible sums of money getting PhDs in physics and chemistry to get rich. If they wanted to get rich they would have gotten MBAs instead. Researchers may have a higher than median income, but not by very much.

      People do science because they want to know how the world works. Some people fund science for the same reason. What was Branson's motive for flying a balloon around the world? Do you raelly think those space startups like Virgin Galactic were done for the money? The people who started them already had more money than ten men could spend in a lifetime.

      People study and fund science out of a wish to understand how the universe works.

      Now please go away and leave us nerds alone. We don't give a shit about your money, unless you want to fund our science or tech projects.

    164. Re:Awesome! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Heh, looks rather like I imagined the "compys" in the book.

      More to the point, are we sure? There's some compelling evidence* that the similar but larger Nedoceratops and Torosaurus are actually more mature forms of the Triceratops, and that the differences in the bone "frill" are due to morphological changes as the animal matured, much as happens in crested birds like the cassawary today.

      *there are distinctive changes in bone porosity as an organism matures and it's skeleton stabilizes. Tested Triceratops bones have porosity characteristic of juvenile animals, where as the other "species" have characteristics of intermediate or adult animals. Similar results were found for several other species groups distiguished mainly by size and morphological skull differences. http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaurs.html

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    165. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerds should be asking all questions, especially related to the economy. Nerds do not operate in a vacuum, and unless you are in a vacuum, you should be seen a serious decline in the manufacturing in USA, which means that there will be a serious decline in all education, sciences and generally all technical fields in USA.

      Nerds should be very concerned about the economy, nerds should be asking the right questions about the money. Money does not fall from the trees, it is created by productivity of people. Money is not 'be all end all', it is people's lives, as it is time and effort that people put into their work.

      You are so shallow minded that you can't understand simplest things, this has nothing to do with 'getting rich', this has to do with the ability of society to provide an environment in which nerds can thrive and the society that is dominated by government, that is taxed, regulated, whose money is destroyed by the central government, and whose economy otherwise undermined in every possible manner is not a society where nerds will flourish.

      If nerds are not asking these questions, then they are very narrow minded, short sighted and generally not very smart.

      As to Virgin Galactic - of-course they are ultimately done for money, they are interesting projects, but they will end catastrophically if they do not generate profits.

      As to 'people funding science out of wish to understand' - so then how come you are promoting NOT that, you are promoting government stealing money from people and then creating a bureaucracy that will not have anything to do with real science, a bureaucracy whose real goal is to grow government, not to do what you are supposedly advocating for here?

      As to 'go away', what, is your world view so narrow, are you so scared of other points of view? You don't actually have to read my comments, do you? I can't post under my nick, it's the limit imposed by the stupid moderation again, but that's OK, I can post as an AC, /. is really dumb in this sense, I've been mode bombed into oblivion within the last few stories, so you don't have to read MY comments so as not to be scarred by different points of view.

    166. Re:Awesome! by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gatling created his machine gun trying to save human lives. In the days of the Civil War, most of the deaths were from infections of otherwise non-fatal wounds or disease. Most of the soldiers were dying before they had the chance to shoot the other guys. Gatling thought that if he could create a gun that enabled one man to do the work of a hundred men, then 99 men could stay home from the battlefield.

      Let's just say that this didn't turn out the way he expected it to.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    167. Re:Awesome! by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and dave chappel made a wife swap skit on his show.

      Then fox made it a real show.

    168. Re:Awesome! by Wintervenom · · Score: 1

      When you're bored, you might want to give Eagle Mode a try.

    169. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And privilege is a debt, debts must be paid.

      Nah, debts do NOT need to be paid. You can always declare bankruptcy. Some people (the truly privileged ones) can even get government to print money to bail them out!

      And short term profits is how those certain people become truly privileged - you need money to buy government power you know.

      Even if you want to be altruistic (which is crazy if you ask me) and pay somebody forward, the best way to do that is to pay them with cold hard cash, which means you need to make profit to generate that cash.

      If you have enough cash, you can just pay people to do the sciency stuff. Heck, I bet if you have enough money, you can even make people like khallow and roman_mir wallow in mud or bark like a dog or spit on their mothers. Every man has a price

    170. Re:Awesome! by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I find this option more interesting than the Jurassic Park.

    171. Re:Awesome! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't know why anyone would care what Crichton has to say.

      Because he's a great writer. In fact, he's too damned good; he's so good I can't make myself read any more of his stuff. It drags me in, takes me out of the real world, and then completely freaks me out. I had to swear off Crichton after reading "Sphere", that book damned near drove me insane. I had nightmares for weeks.

      Talent like his should be illegal, or they should legalize LSD. They're both pretty similar!

    172. Re:Awesome! by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Any and ALL knowledge have value. In fact, the value of it is INFINITE since knowledge cannot be used-up. It's a true post-scarcity supply. Economists measure that value as "zero" - but that's because economists are using a too limited view.

      The system of accounting you're using here is dishonest. It's multiplying the value of any piece of knowledge, with a theoretically infinite number of future consumers, to derive an "infinite value".

      Not all knowledge is equal. Knowledge of E=mc^2 and its physical applications has more value than the knowledge of how much lint is in my pocket right now. Allowing that both have "infinite" value, we see that each has different levels of "infinite" value.

      Next, we have limited resources. There may be an infinite demand for any knowledge we find (by counting on there being infinite people in the future), but we have a finite number of people to discover that knowledge.

      Each piece of knowledge may have infinite value, but we don't have enough time or resources to learn everything, right now. The very second you try to prioritize one venue of research over the other, you have made an economic decision and assigned a finite value to knowledge.

      How much money are you willing to shell out for the knowledge of how much lint is in my pocket? You may claim all knowledge has infinite value - but it doesn't actually have infinite value to you. You aren't willing to sell all that you have in order to pursue the "infinite value" of a random piece of knowledge. The value of something is very much related to how much anyone is willing to pay for it.

      The system of accounting you're using justifies throwing an infinite amount of resources at even trivial knowledge, because it has "infinite value". That's simply not workable, and I have no doubt that you don't actually use that accounting when managing your own resources.

      I don't mind if you want to criticize a society or gov't for putting the wrong value on some types of knowledge. But saying any and all knowledge has "infinite value" is simply wrong.

      (PS: Economists don't assign a value of 0 to knowledge. Economists say the value of knowledge is the cost a person/society is willing to pay for it)

    173. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Not all knowledge is equal. Knowledge of E=mc^2 and its physical applications has more value than the knowledge of how much lint is in my pocket right now. Allowing that both have "infinite" value, we see that each has different levels of "infinite" value.

      So ? Aleph-one is bigger than Aleph-zero but both are infinite. Don't argue mathematics if you don't KNOW mathematics.

      >Next, we have limited resources. There may be an infinite demand for any knowledge we find (by counting on there being infinite people in the future), but we have a finite number of people to discover that knowledge.

      Which is why I never said we should devote ALL our resources to knowledge seeking, that was somebody else trying to set up a strawman. I just said that no resources we DO spend on that are ever WASTED.

      >How much money are you willing to shell out for the knowledge of how much lint is in my pocket?

      Me, very little, but an Australian scientist who made a study of various types of lint to answer the question "what is it and where does it come from" used to pay quite a bit for samples - exactly to find out how much lint was in somebody's pocket (or belly-button) at a given time and what it was composed off. That's STILL valid science, it won an award.

      >The system of accounting you're using justifies throwing an infinite amount of resources at even trivial knowledge, because it has "infinite value".

      Strawman attack, I didn't suggest we should do that, merely that what we DO have for it is never wasted - even if we cannot get a return in terms of MONEY. Thus that limiting research to that which has practical application is stupid.
      Indeed it goes against the very definition of science.
      Engineering is about making things work - without understanding them.
      Science is about understanding things, without making them work. The moment it even HAS a practical application it has ceased to BE science and has become engineering.
      E=MC2 is science, building an atom bomb is engineering.

      >I don't mind if you want to criticize a society or gov't for putting the wrong value on some types of knowledge. But saying any and all knowledge has "infinite value" is simply wrong.

      And saying it doesn't is provably just as wrong. Just because it's not all equal, doesn't mean it's not all infinite. Infinite is not A number, it's an entire number SYSTEM with an infinite number of infinite numbers in it.

      >PS: Economists don't assign a value of 0 to knowledge. Economists say the value of knowledge is the cost a person/society is willing to pay for it

      Strictly speaking I was being a bit oversimplistic. Economist say the value of anything is determined by supply/demand (well the PRICE really but they use price as a value METER so it comes down to much the same thing).
      So when supply is infinite, well any infinite number divided by any non-infinite number (and the demand is never infinite at any GIVEN moment - since there is a finite number of people at any given moment) is equal to (or rather TENDS TOWARDS in calculus) - ZERO.
      But if you consider future generations, then the demand is ALSO infinite - and any infinite number divided by any other infinite number is ALSO zero.

      Why is the supply infinite ? Because you cannot use knowledge up. If I tell you something I know, I don't STOP knowing it, now TWO people know it, and can tell other people - the supply of any given PIECE of knowledge is infinite.
      The supply of NEW knowledge is NOT infinite of course, it takes investment to acquire knowledge, but that's a once-off cost and even when it's comparatively HUGE it pales in comparison to the INFINITE value derived from infinite supply of it in future.
      It's the same problem capitalism has with ANY post-scarcity technology - especially when it's something with an initial input cost. That's why we are living in the copyright wars. Capitalism hasn't been able to offer a way to fund initial creation when re-creation is infinite and thus effectively free which creates i

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    174. Re:Awesome! by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      Crichton was writing the most entertaining novel he knew how. If people want to say "Oh, he had an agenda, warning us about so-and-so!" they're free to have that interpretation. He didn't really "have an agenda" until he wrote "State Of Fear."

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    175. Re:Awesome! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Right. So basic common sense should tell you to limit your exposure to danger. Growing a dinosaur the size of a dog or cow = a great idea. A couple dozen T-Rexs and Raptors, all at once, with no experience... not so much.

      A dinosaur the size of a dog could escape and hide, potentially wreaking havoc on local ecosystems. A T-Rex, on the other hand, is far too large to do so.

      Limiting your exposure to danger means knowing what the dangers are, and that's not necessarily obvious.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    176. Re:Awesome! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You can't be reasoned with

      Not by someone who seems to not have any reaoning abilities at all, like you. Again, what are you doing on a nerd site? You're being modded down for good reason; you're like an athiest commenting about how God doesn't exist on an evangelical messageboard, or someone going to AARP and trash talking Medicare and Social Security.

      You're a greedhead, not a nerd, you have no grasp of science, no love of science (except for its economic benefits), no respect for learning or knowledge.

      You are a Ferengi. Your worldview is distasteful to us nerds, and completely unintellectual and contrary to logic and reason.

      I have no foes, but you tempt me, boy...

    177. Re:Awesome! by Tyndmyr · · Score: 1

      The day the government stops allocating tax money to research...is the day I send them dollars myself, I suppose. I don't see any reason why I can't do that, and it seems easier than revolting.

      --
      Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
    178. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not going to loop back through the comments you are replying to, but if you did read them and your conclusion is that it is I, who is not reasoning, then clearly it is you, who do not belong on a 'nerd' site, not that it matters whether you are here or not. Obviously your entire comment is a worthless ad-hominem and has no value in itself, as to having 'foes', oh please, you again believe it matters somehow to me or at all?

    179. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The day the government stops allocating tax money to research...is the day I send them dollars myself, I suppose. I don't see any reason why I can't do that, and it seems easier than revolting

      Good point, if enough people agree at least. Too few and the reason you couldn't do it is because there won't be any researchers left to send the dollars to.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    180. Re:Awesome! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Using nothing more than signal chemicals (something like growth hormones) applied at the right spot during the right moment of embryo growth, it's possible to make chickens grow teeth. A different substance applied at the base of the spine during early embryo formation gets you a chicken with a long, dinosaur-like tail. You can do something similar to the wings too, unbending them in a way that makes them more like handclaws.

      So in short, the average chicken is just some growth hormones short of becoming a full-blown cockatrice. The kind of hormones we really love to feed to our barnyard animals, such as chickens.

      I guess we just got a new apocalypse scenario.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    181. Re:Awesome! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm not, and you're not, but roman_mir is. So is Bill Gates, Tim Cook, Mitt Romney, Ken Lay, Bernie Madof, and everyone on Wall Street.

      Money and power are those people's religion. They WORSHIP money. To them, nothing else matters. Trying to talk sense to them is like trying to talk an athiest into believing in God, or trying to convince an Evangelist that God doesn't exist. It just can't be done, and trying to is an excersize in futility.

    182. Re:Awesome! by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Which is why I never said we should devote ALL our resources to knowledge seeking, that was somebody else trying to set up a strawman. I just said that no resources we DO spend on that are ever WASTED.

      But sometimes the knowledge is not worth the cost. Would you be willing to deliberately infect people with diseases and watch them die, so we can collect medical knowledge? That knowledge has infinite value! It can potentially help an infinite number of people, but it has an "infinite" cost of human lives, and you'd be evil to kill others to gain that knowledge. The decision would be murkier if it used volunteers, but thankfully I don't think that's a dilemma we've had to resolve.

      Me, very little, but an Australian scientist who made a study of various types of lint to answer the question "what is it and where does it come from" used to pay quite a bit for samples - exactly to find out how much lint was in somebody's pocket (or belly-button) at a given time and what it was composed off. That's STILL valid science, it won an award.

      And he pays a finite amount of money to gain that knowledge. You yourself pay nothing (rightfully). He also does not pay for all the pocket lint in the world; only for select samples. The knowledge of my pocket lint may very be lost to the world. No one cares, nor should they. It never had infinite value.

      Why is the supply infinite ? Because you cannot use knowledge up. If I tell you something I know, I don't STOP knowing it, now TWO people know it, and can tell other people - the supply of any given PIECE of knowledge is infinite. The supply of NEW knowledge is NOT infinite of course, it takes investment to acquire knowledge, but that's a once-off cost and even when it's comparatively HUGE it pales in comparison to the INFINITE value derived from infinite supply of it in future.

      Your analysis overlooks one thing that invalidates it: Knowledge transfer and maintenance has a cost.

      It takes time and effort to organize information so it can be passed to future generations. It takes time and effort for someone to learn information in a specific field. No one on earth has the capacity to be a master of every single field and know the entirety of human knowledge. Rather, people dedicate themselves to master one aspect, and as far as that knowledge has value to society, it is maintained and transmitted. Even in the digital realm we play in, it still costs fractions of a penny both to transmit and store information. You may think it insignificant, but it adds up when you deal with the terabytes upon terabytes of information we collectively process. .

      Next, because maintaining knowledge costs time and resources (which is equivalent to money), knowledge can be lost when humanity stops paying the cost to keep it. Knowledge has been lost to history when people didn't write it down, when those who knew it died off, and new generations didn't (or couldn't) learn it.

      This being an information age, a lot of knowledge has been gathered and archived; but can you guarantee that 100% of it will be saved 100 years from now? Any knowledge that is lost cannot have infinite value, as its supply has gone from "infinite" to "0".

      Information has high supply (ridiculously tiny reproduction cost), but it's not actually infinite.

      You assumed human knowledge lasts forever, even though it does not. It has an upkeep cost and a transfer cost; if not paid, the knowledge is lost. Lost knowledge has finite value. Assigning infinite value to a finite value knowledge is wrong. It may be recreated in the future after being lost, but that'd be from an independent effort that bore new costs.

      If knowledge has an infinite value because an infinite number of future people will consume it, it also has an infinite cost. An infinite number of teachers and students spend years to teach it and learn it; infinite resources are used to

    183. Re:Awesome! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So Jurassic Park is really Birds II?

      Makes sense.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    184. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or both, on his new Titanosaurus, take a cruise on a historic ship while being chased by extinct creatures!!

      Its a win, win or possibly get eaten, sink, and lose situation YMMV

    185. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a McVelociraptor Burgers sound good I am waiting for the Buffalociraptor wings (caution may contain sharp claw bits)

    186. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >But sometimes the knowledge is not worth the cost

      Indeed, which is why we do need to select more worthwhile research -we cannot afford "buy" it ALL - especially when the cost is lives, I just argued that the metric for choosing worthwhile research should not be it's likelihood of producing short-term monetary gain.
      Ideally the government ought to fund research but have no say in who it is allocated to - that should be decided by the boards of universities, academics selecting which research within their staff is most deserving. Of course that's still not ideal - but nothing is, it's a hell of a lot better than letting shareholders decide it.

      >And he pays a finite amount of money to gain that knowledge. You yourself pay nothing (rightfully). He also does not pay for all the pocket lint in the world; only for select samples. The knowledge of my pocket lint may very be lost to the world. No one cares, nor should they. It never had infinite value

      You don't know that, for all you know mixed in there is a windblown spore that would cure cancer. A single molecule, never to be discovered because nobody checked there. Unfortunately, we can't afford to turn over every stone, so we have to choose the most likely ones. This is a reality, but I won't pretend it's not an unfortunate reality.

      >Your analysis overlooks one thing that invalidates it: Knowledge transfer and maintenance has a cost.

      By any reasonable metric, the lowest cost there is, and a cost that with better and better technology only gets closer to zero. It costs as near-nothing as makes no difference to put a research paper on the web for anybody to download (if measured in percentage of total cost / total papers available).

      Terry Pratchett once wrote: If you really want to help people, build a library and don't put a lock on the door.
      He's right, the only thing that ultimately makes the world any better for anybody is access to knowledge without barriers, and since the poor are the ones who has the most NEED for improving their lives, money is the one barrier we cannot AFFORD to put on knowledge.

      >Next, because maintaining knowledge costs time and resources (which is equivalent to money), knowledge can be lost when humanity stops paying the cost to keep it. Knowledge has been lost to history when people didn't write it down, when those who knew it died off, and new generations didn't (or couldn't) learn it.

      And as a result, there are now classical cathedrals where the stained glass is down according to a method that's been lost, which means when they get damaged, it's impossible to repair them since nobody knows how to do it anymore.
      That's not a GOOD thing and we OUGHT to apply our technology to REDUCING that problem, not pretending it makes the exercise futile.

      >This being an information age, a lot of knowledge has been gathered and archived; but can you guarantee that 100% of it will be saved 100 years from now? Any knowledge that is lost cannot have infinite value, as its supply has gone from "infinite" to "0".

      That doesn't mean it's value isn't infinite, it just means that an infinite sized value has been lost. When a cargo ship sinks, the value of it's cargo doesn't disappear, it still had the value it had before sinking, but that value is lost, and the owners have to recover it's cost. Lost knowledge is no less valuable for being loss, it's just not USEFUL, we end up paying for the lost value in the things we cannot do anymore.

      >You assumed human knowledge lasts forever, even though it does not.
      Actually, history suggests the majority of it survives a very long time. We still have access to the vast majority of the writings of the ancient Greeks and even the Mesophotamian's. There's probably no profit in decyphering original carvings of their legends - but there is certainly VALUE in doing so.
      In this hypothetical "profitable research only" there would BE no archaeology, or at least, archaeology would be limited to the tiny degree that digs up stuff you can p

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    187. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crichton was trying to make a point with his Jurassic Park novels. It was a cautionary tale about "the law of unintended consequences".

      And here I thought it was to say it is hysterical to watch fat men and lawyers get eaten by dinosaurs. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

    188. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crichton is strongly opposed to privatization of science and believes it must be tax-funded as a public-good without a profit motive, he also strongly opposes laws that allow publicly funded research to be patented.

      So basically, he was an idiot. Got it.

      Now that tax-money may have been made by profit-seeking companies originally, but the intermediary step prevents THEIR motivations from becoming the motivations of the SCIENTISTS

      So instead of the researchers being controlled by corporatists, they are controlled by politicians...who are themselves controlled by corporatists. Got it. Totally sounds like a better and more efficient situation than just hiring the scientists directly, or them raising their own funds to do whatever research they like.

    189. Re:Awesome! by wild_quinine · · Score: 1

      It's been pointed out the problems in Jurassic Park are not Man's Arrrogance in playing God but rather lousy zookeeping and corruption and sabotage.

      Man's Arrogance in thinking he is competent. I see that story all the time.

    190. Re:Awesome! by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      The JP raptors were more or less based on Deinonychus

    191. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point. He was comparing animal X(frozen for 10k years) with animal Y(not frozen at all.), and you come back with "You are an idiot, animal X is not animal Y!!!!"

    192. Re:Awesome! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      When you're bored, you might want to give Eagle Mode a try.

      It did not compile because of what looked like missing includes, and a grep didn't find any requirements.
      If it's not made by someone who sees the benefit of putting the requirements in a plain text document, it's not something I will use.

    193. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example if all drug-research was done publicly, and made by whoever had a factory, without patents, then medicines would be MUCH, MUCH cheaper for all of us.

      Really? Medicine would be cheaper? Even the thousands medicines I don't take, and won't ever take, yet would still be forced to subsidize under your ill conceived scheme?

      There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    194. Re:Awesome! by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      And as a result, there are now classical cathedrals where the stained glass is down according to a method that's been lost, which means when they get damaged, it's impossible to repair them since nobody knows how to do it anymore. That's not a GOOD thing and we OUGHT to apply our technology to REDUCING that problem, not pretending it makes the exercise futile.

      But it happens, and it invalidates your thesis that all knowledge has infinite value because it always has an infinite supply to meet an infinite demand.

      >This being an information age, a lot of knowledge has been gathered and archived; but can you guarantee that 100% of it will be saved 100 years from now? Any knowledge that is lost cannot have infinite value, as its supply has gone from "infinite" to "0".

      That doesn't mean it's value isn't infinite, it just means that an infinite sized value has been lost. When a cargo ship sinks, the value of it's cargo doesn't disappear, it still had the value it had before sinking, but that value is lost, and the owners have to recover it's cost. Lost knowledge is no less valuable for being loss, it's just not USEFUL, we end up paying for the lost value in the things we cannot do anymore.

      Uh.... What distinction are you trying to make here? Call it lost, call it disappeared, no difference. You cannot use what you do not have. There is no infinite supply of information, when you cannot access the information in the first place. One cannot assign a value to something that does not exist.

      All I am doing is pointing out how your absolute statement is wrong. Your belief that all knowledge has infinite value is based on the belief that there is infinite demand and infinite supply.

      There is no infinite supply of knowledge when it can be lost forever through simple inaction.

      There is no infinite demand, either. Demand is based on value, value is based on subjective human opinion, and no individual is qualified to speak for an infinite number of human beings on how they will value any given piece of knowledge. You base your infinite demand on presuming there are an infinite number of human beings who assign a non-zero positive value on every piece of knowledge that can ever exist. Don't be so sure of that. The existence of the phrase "TMI" indicates that some knowledge has negative value.

      You're rather optimistic that humanity will exist forever for your infinite numbers, but optimism does not substitute for reality. There is nothing about this universe that prevents humans from going extinct; in fact, entropy guarantees it. If the universe exists for a finite duration, there cannot be an infinite number of humans to generate your infinite demand. Quit misusing "infinite".

      I argued simply against the libertarian GP's idea that we should never do any research without a profit motive. Indeed I argued that no research should have a profit motive. [snip]

      One cannot separate "profit" from "value" in an economic discussion. Profit is value minus cost. Profit isn't a dirty word. All it means is that the value exceeded the cost.

    195. Re:Awesome! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Uhh, yeah, there is a point, you just don't get it. Fewer people die. This is not an abstract concept.

    196. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Um... excuse me... but you have to DO THE RESEARCH first, to find out which fusion technologies will work, before you can put money into the winner(s).

      The kind of money they're spending now, should be for development of a commercial plant not a purely research institution that achieves break even but doesn't go much further than that. They can't keep spending more and maintain any relevance to the real world. At some point, the cost of the plants needs to drop to something viable. Now is the best time to do that.

      The research has to be done for less or you aren't doing good fusion research, but rather welfare for physicists.

      As I see it, they should be doing a lot of fusion reactors in the millions to hundreds of millions of dollars range. If some of those work out with good scaling properties and return on energy, then it makes sense to develop the best for commercial purposes. If not, it doesn't make sense to double down with a much more expensive reactor.

    197. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      I am. The day my government STOPS allocating a share of my taxes to university subsidies and research grants is the day I will revolt against taxes, same goes for welfare programs.

      Go rebel then because the US isn't going to be allotting money on a lot of things soon. I remain deeply cynical when you're willing to spend my money on what I see as garbage, but not willing to spend your own money on it.

    198. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      We can't tell the Van Gogh from the idiots until a century later- what makes you think we can truly evaluate the value of any other knowledge ?

      That would be ridiculous. Of course, you can tell the two apart. And for the most part, the good artists are recognized in their time, not just by some nebulous method a century later.

      Just because something has infinite value, doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing that does, or that it's value is interchangeable with all that does - or more importantly all that is neccesities.

      IF that's not true, then "infinite value" is a meaningless term.

      Why then do we fund astronomy ? Anything beyond the engineering needed to plant satelites have ZERO profitable returns for the foreseable future.

      Living in space and on other moons and planets is in the foreseeable future. A lot of the space science currently done has some relevance to that, such as exploration of Mars's surface or the study of potentially lethal gamma ray bursts.

      What monetary value is there in knowing that Elephants are related to Mannatees ?

      Both generate tourist revenue. And if a disease which is known to affect one species affects the other, we might have better insight into preserving a source of tourist revenue. That's monetary value right there.

      And why is it that the second largest scientific breakthroughs of the entire 20th century was made by it's LEAST capitalist nation ?

      That's a non sequitur. Nobody thinks that the absence of capitalism automatically zeroes out the value of scientific knowledge. Since we're mentioning the USSR, it's worth noting that they had serious troubles with institutionalized pseudo-science such as Lysenkoism, polywater, and an igneous origin theory of petroleum generation. Those came about in large part due to an inability to distinguish productive science from non-productive pseudo-science.

    199. Re:Awesome! by khallow · · Score: 1

      And they only care in the latter case, if the hobo isn't crazy enough.

    200. Re:Awesome! by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While large creatures are probably dangerous to humans, they are unlikely to be a real danger to humanity, unless they are as intelligent as humans AND people decide to give them equality or near equality with humans. Because if bad things happen, they'd just end up near extinction like the other large creatures or large predators. Who believes we can't kill practically every last tiger or elephant in the world if we really wanted to? If dangerous dinos somehow escape the humans will come with guns and hunt them down, heck all the big game hunters will be fighting to get licenses to do it. The only way there'd be millions of them is if they end up being farmed by humans for meat, leather, feathers or other stuff.

      The smaller creatures on the other hand could end up as pests like rats. But if they breed via eggs, they better be able to keep their eggs (and young) safe or the rats, cats and dogs will exterminate them too.

      The even smaller stuff like old viruses and bacteria? Now that's what scares me. But they are probably being introduced regularly already from all that thawing ice - albeit not at such scale.

      --
    201. Re:Awesome! by lennier · · Score: 1

      Any and ALL knowledge have value. In fact, the value of it is INFINITE since knowledge cannot be used-up.
      All knowledge has infinite value just by existing.
      something of infinite value that only gets MORE valuable the bigger the supply becomes and MORE valuable the more people have access to it

      Your approach to transfinite arithmetic intrigues me and I would like to subscribe to the Aleph-first issue of your journal, although I hope you have improved the publication lead time since the Aleph-Nullth issue.

      I think there is another consideration, which is that while information does have an infinite lifetime and only a finite production cost, it also has a non-zero consumption cost. A catalog of all stars a million light years away might just as well be a list of random numbers for the survival value it confers on a human timescale of less than a millennium, and it seems hard to argue that either are worth diverting resources from food or energy production. So not all knowledge is actually necessarily equally "infinite in value".

      It might well be a matter of personal curiosity or national prestige to know utterly non-technological scientific esoterica - but it might not necessarily a hugely urgent priority to spend either the man-millennia to acquire that knowledge or the hours per data point for every person who learns it. There could be more important things to do first.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    202. Re:Awesome! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Uhh, yeah, there is a point, you just don't get it. Fewer people die.

      Really? Less of OUR people die...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    203. Re:Awesome! by petsounds · · Score: 1

      People don't often worry about tigers or apes escaping, either of which are a lot smarter than any lizard from 64+ million years ago.

      Crows are quite smart. They have been found to use tools to solve problems, have memory of people that they like and don't like, et al. Parrots as well. I'd say crows are probably better at problem-solving than tigers are. And so as modern birds descend from dinosaurs, there's no reason to believe some species of dinosaurs weren't equally as smart as crows are.

    204. Re:Awesome! by petsounds · · Score: 1

      Or being chased by a T. Rex *on* the Titanic.

    205. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >You're rather optimistic that humanity will exist forever for your infinite numbers, but optimism does not substitute for reality. There is nothing about this universe that prevents humans from going extinct; in fact, entropy guarantees it. If the universe exists for a finite duration, there cannot be an infinite number of humans to generate your infinite demand. Quit misusing "infinite".

      Actually, I'm not - I specifically addressed this in my post- we WILL go extinct, knowledge which we cannot sell now is the only thing that can prolong our time here - but it can't make it eternal. I also said we have no choice but to AIM for infinite survival, or we won't even be around as long as we CAN be.

      >One cannot separate "profit" from "value" in an economic discussion. Profit is value minus cost. Profit isn't a dirty word. All it means is that the value exceeded the cost.

      That wasn't the meaning of profit under discussion and certainly not what the GP meant by it. In this context "profit motive" for research literally meant: "The ability to sell products made from that research for more money than we spent on it."
      So that's a subset of the proper definition of profit. It does not consider the value of research in ANY terms EXCEPT monetary and even then only in a fairly short time-frame. Crichton's (and my) point was that science should not be done for the PURPOSE of making money, it can be USED for that purpose, but not by the people who DO the research.
      That's not the same as saying we shouldn't consider cost and value, I specifically said we CANNOT do ALL the research for ALL the knowledge that could be known - that is the only basis we can use to choose what research to do, but that choice must not be based on a desire to earn money.
      Indeed research production must be given away freely (just because you don't charge for something doesn't mean it's value doesn't exist - when habitat for humanity builds a house for a poor person, that house has the same value as one that was bought).

      Basically science should be done as charity to all mankind. Some poor people will sell their habitat-for-humanity houses, some people will make money out of research charitably given - that's fine. But the researchers shouldn't be trying to make money - indeed we should do all in our power to remove monetary concerns from them. This is WHY we invented ideas like 'tenure'. We give our best scientists a position from which they CANNOT be fired, not ever, so that there is no worry about perceptions of value or productivity, so that they can work with the freedom of being driven by curiosity rather than money.
      Due to the sheer SCALE of research costs in many fields, I'm not sure private charity can fund the public charity that the researchers are doing (or ought to be doing), hence I think tax funding makes sense here.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    206. Re:Awesome! by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      That was either a Cray or a Connection Machine mainframe, neither of which is likely close to "lowest" bid, which would have been something like a bunch of Pentiums running Windows Server.

      My answer would be, "When cloning intelligent predatory dinosaurs, consider having a kill squad equipped with attack helicopters and FLIR cameras on standby." The book's answer was a small RPG-like warhead launcher of some sort. The movie's answer was a Franchi SPAS-12. I like my answer a lot better, though.

    207. Re:Awesome! by dkf · · Score: 1

      This is also why the only NON-science prize is the peace prize.

      Literature is a science?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    208. Re:Awesome! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Literature is a science?

      You're right, it occurred to me later that I forgot the arts-related ones. Clearly Mister Nobel also believed that literature and poetry uplifted humanity.

      The study of literature is a science (and involves lots of cross-study with other sciences like archaeology for example) but writing there-off is an art.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    209. Re:Awesome! by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, tell me about it.

      I saw the movie before I read the book. People kept saying the book was so much better. I disagree - the movie was (mostly) the same story with the preachy parts removed. I will admit the end of the book was better, what with hunting down the raptor nests and whatnot, but it doesn't make up for the "moral" of the story being crammed in your face the whole time. People say Starship Troopers is better than the movie, too, but I decided to give it a pass.

      It's the same reason I don't like a lot of Heinlein's work. His characters go off on rants about how much better the world is with X (X ususally being some far-left concept or free love) and it completely derails the story. The Door into Summer and Citizen of the Galaxy are good, but I made the mistake of buying the extra long version of Stranger in a Strange Land... yeah, there's a reason a third of the book got cut before publishing.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    210. Re:Awesome! by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Try reading the book. The movie cut out all the preachy crap.

      Seriously, it keeps going from the action scenes (i.e. everyone getting eaten) to Malcolm, alone on his deathbed, yelling to no one in particular about how it was all bound to go wrong, they're such fools, etc.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    211. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://eaglemode.sourceforge.net/SystemRequirements.html

    212. Re:Awesome! by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm not - I specifically addressed this in my post- we WILL go extinct, knowledge which we cannot sell now is the only thing that can prolong our time here - but it can't make it eternal. I also said we have no choice but to AIM for infinite survival, or we won't even be around as long as we CAN be.

      No matter what your intentions, claiming infinite value when you do not actually have infinite value is a dishonest accounting system.

      If I have $1000 in the bank, I am not a millionaire, no matter what I say. If I have $100k/year income, I could say that I will be a millionaire in 10 years, but that is an extrapolation, it is only true if I don't die or lose my job/business, and so on. I can claim to be a potential millionaire, but I cannot claim to be a millionaire without being a liar.

      In the case of infinite value, no finite sum of finite numbers will yield infinity. Period.

      You cannot claim infinite value when it is actually finite. If you don't think being demonstrably wrong is a problem, you are in fact rejecting knowledge and truth.

      That wasn't the meaning of profit under discussion and certainly not what the GP meant by it. In this context "profit motive" for research literally meant: "The ability to sell products made from that research for more money than we spent on it."

      Let's look at what he said:

      Knowledge, knowledge is the most valuable commodity in the universe, far moreso than profit - especially monetary profit.

      - contradiction in the very first sentence. Value can be measured in the real world, it's not that hard, either people want it and are willing to SPEND on it, and thus you can have profit and you can measure efficiency or people don't want it and then there is NO VALUE except for what is in your head.

      He said the same thing I am saying - value is based on people's valuation. It can be measured (estimated) by the cost people are willing to pay for it. Profit and value are LINKED concepts that you CANNOT separate.

      When you said that infinite cost doesn't matter because the value outweighs the cost - THAT IS PROFIT MOTIVE. You seek more value than what you paid for. You deride the profit motive right before saying the pursuit of knowledge should be governed by it! Profit does not exclusively mean monetary profit; the fact that you used "monetary profit" should be a clue that there is also "non-monetary profit" (personal satisfaction, glory, anything non-material). Both are elements of "profit".

      Our problem here is that you've created an accounting system where the "non-monetary profit" of knowledge is arbitrarily declared by you to be infinite. That is a false valuation. You aren't willing to pay an infinite cost for trivial knowledge. No one is willing to pay an infinite cost for trivial knowledge. Economics is concerned with the distribution of the scarce (finite), and your addition of "infinite value" where there is none only creates a broken economic system. (This is a big deal because hundreds of millions were murdered in the past century in attempts to implement fundamentally broken economic systems)

      If you're honest, stick to "potentially infinite value". In which case you make it clear that you're using an extrapolation and allow for the chance that your valuation is wrong. But that doesn't sound as impressive for selling your proposal, does it?

    213. Re:Awesome! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. Nukes shield the people they protect. Why would you think that people not protected by nukes would benefit? And it's not like they are dying to any greater degree than they would have in a world without nukes. All that violence was already there. Nukes just cut the violence between the big boys, who were the worse offenders.

      Which is why if you want a peaceful world, you should be in FAVOR of nuclear proliferation.

      As an example, ~400,000 Koreans died in WWII. ~350,000 died in the Korean War. Now imagine if that war had been fought across the entirety of Asia.

    214. Re:Awesome! by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      And the "unintended consequences" are "the ADA might sound like a good idea on paper, but ergonomic advantages of lever-type door handles work for velociraptors, too."

  2. Interesting...And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just for the record, he did actually watch the movie, so he knows how this turns out right?

    1. Re:Interesting...And.. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, he did actually watch the movie, so he knows how this turns out right?

      This would be a species of dinosaur that was native to Australia right?

    2. Re:Interesting...And.. by detritus. · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which one, Jurassic Park or Titanic?

    3. Re:Interesting...And.. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jurassitanic. The touching story of a doomed love between a beautiful woman and a scrappy, determined raptor, set against the background of one of the greatest theme park disasters of all time. It'll be the date movie of the year.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Interesting...And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn for females.

    5. Re:Interesting...And.. by drkim · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which one, Jurassic Park or Titanic?

      Actually, that would be pretty cool...

      Hundreds of carnivorous dinosaurs roaming freely around a luxury cruise ship, which sinks at the end...

      I smell reality series!
      (Frantically calling Writers' Guild)

    6. Re:Interesting...And.. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      You're writing on Slashdot and expecting someone to WTFM?

    7. Re:Interesting...And.. by sempir · · Score: 0

      Why does he want to make a copy of Titanic, all he has to do is lift the original, weld up a couple of holes, a coat of paint and you're good to go! That mutha was so well built that even after a 100 years the pool hasn't leaked one drop!

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    8. Re:Interesting...And.. by Hrshgn · · Score: 2

      The title is obvious as well:

      "Dinosaurs on a ship".

    9. Re:Interesting...And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dinosaurs on a Dinghy" seems more appropriate.

    10. Re:Interesting...And.. by gman003 · · Score: 1

      No, "Snakes on a Plane" didn't make enough money or have enough long-term pop culture impact to reference it.

      "Ship-Rex" might work (punning off "shipwrecks" and "t-rex". It's a horrible pun, but it could work well enough for a "SyFy" channel movie...

    11. Re:Interesting...And.. by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Steven Moffatt beat you to it: Dinosaurs on a Spaceship (Perhaps it actually will be the Titanic from the Christmas special with Kylie Minogue.)

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    12. Re:Interesting...And.. by drkim · · Score: 1

      Now I can't get it out of my mind:

      Samuel L. Jackson: "I have had it with these mother-fucking Dinosaurs on this mother-fucking ship!!!"

  3. Yea ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I want a pony.

    1. Re:Yea ok by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      If you give me a couple of billion dollars, I'll get you a pony! Anything else?

  4. Meh by srussia · · Score: 3

    Someone send this guy a DVD of "Weird Science". I'd go to that theme park.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Meh by Teancum · · Score: 2

      If there is a theme park for weird science, I'd say it would have to be the Exploratorium. If you happen to ever get to the San Francisco area in your travels, it is most definitely a geek out site to visit and check out... especially with your kids if you have them with you but going by yourself is also worth the time as well.

      They could also use some benefactors and philanthropists to help them out, but to me it is what a museum really ought to be instead of a bunch of stuffy static exhibits.

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

      Or the holodeck....

    3. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, you could chip a tooth.

    4. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't go to the concessions. Unless you'd like a nice greasy pork sandwich--served in a dirty ashtray?

  5. Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I saw this movie already, and it didn't end well.

    1. Re:Jurassic Park by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought it ended ok, but IANAL.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

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

      I don't know if I'm captain obvious, but(t) U anal and like to lick butts?

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

      God creates dinosaurs
      God destroys dinosaurs.
      God creates Man.
      Man destroys God.
      Man creates dinosaurs.
      Dinosaurs eat Man.
      Woman inherits the earth.

  6. Did I miss something? by Apotekaren · · Score: 2

    I thought there were lots of talks about this after the movie came out, and the definite answer was that it was impossible because DNA does not preserve that long, no matter how nicely that mosquito was encapsulated in amber.

    --
    She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
    1. Re:Did I miss something? by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Ssssshhh! Don't tell him. It's so cute!!

      --
      Gently reply
    2. Re:Did I miss something? by pegasustonans · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought there were lots of talks about this after the movie came out, and the definite answer was that it was impossible because DNA does not preserve that long, no matter how nicely that mosquito was encapsulated in amber.

      True, though nobody ever said it would be impossible if the specimen were encapsulated in ice.

      It may be possible if dinosaurs are ever found preserved in ice. Though, I wouldn't hold your breath.

      The reason DNA degrades in amber is, among other things, due to background radiation, a factor which is less worrisome when dealing with ice.

      The likelihood of finding a dinosaur or specimen with intact dinosaur DNA in ice, however, is ridiculously low. Nevertheless, if I were a billionaire intent on blowing money, I could think of worse ways to spend it than a dinosaur hunting expedition to Antarctica.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    3. Re:Did I miss something? by tawt · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who read that as "encapsulated in rice"?

    4. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOVA had an episode about the possibility of resurrecting dinosaurs ("The Real Jurassic Park", November 9, 1993). One of the scientists concluded that the most likely way of obtaining viable dinosaur DNA would be to build a time machine. Perhaps Mr. Palmer will try that.

    5. Re:Did I miss something? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

        One of the scientists concluded that the most likely way of obtaining viable dinosaur DNA would be to build a time machine. Perhaps Mr. Palmer will try that.

      I hope so. I really want to steal a tardis and time travel around the multiverse with hot women. Where do i sign up to fund that kickstart!

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    6. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who read that as "encapsulated in rice"?

      yes.

    7. Re:Did I miss something? by MurukeshM · · Score: 1

      Though, I wouldn't hold your breath.

      And you most certainly shouldn't hold his breath.

    8. Re:Did I miss something? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The reason DNA degrades in amber is, among other things, due to background radiation, a factor which is less worrisome when dealing with ice.

      More importantly, later studies found that the degraded DNA in the amber wasn't dinosaur DNA in the first place, that had completely broken down millions of years ago already, what was there was DNA from more recent contamination by other life-forms (bacteria and such that managed to survive in there for a short period) and which was sufficiently degraded that the genetics of the early 1990's couldn't tell what it was (yet).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Did I miss something? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      I could think of worse ways to spend it than a dinosaur hunting expedition to Antarctica.

      Incidentally, Antarctica was probably ice free at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs.

    10. Re:Did I miss something? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, if I were a billionaire intent on blowing money, I could think of worse ways to spend it than a dinosaur hunting expedition to Antarctica.

      I think I'd have to get tired of coke-fuelled orgies with a few dozen of my favourite pornstars first, but each to his own.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Did I miss something? by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 2

      True, though nobody ever said it would be impossible if the specimen were encapsulated in ice.

      Trouble is you need to find a place which has continuously stayed below freezing for the last 65 million years, plus a species of dinosaur which would have lived in such a place. I'm unaware of any woolly-mammoth type dinosaur thought to have lived in a freezing climate. And whilst the last of the dinosaurs was walking the earth, Antarctica had a sub-tropical climate.

    12. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could think of worse ways to spend it than a dinosaur hunting expedition to Antarctica.

      Incidentally, Antarctica was probably ice free at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs.

      So dinosaurs drove around in SUVs?

      Cool.

    13. Re:Did I miss something? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Came here to say this. Even wooly mammoths frozen in ice haven't fared too well. The current plan for restoring them involves manual DNA repair and breeding with modern elephants.

      Fun news but without a good DNA source this is quite impossible.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:Did I miss something? by bingbong · · Score: 1

      A couple points,

      a) to date no dinosaur DNA has been found to have survived.

      b) if you were to take some DNA from a mosquito trapped in Amber (a la JP) and clone it - you would just get a mosquito.

      c) Jack Horner has an excellent TED talk that discusses this point nicely:

      http://blog.ted.com/2011/06/07/building-a-dinosaur-from-a-chicken-jack-horner-on-ted/

      --
      "Omnis tuus capsa sunt inesse nos"
    15. Re:Did I miss something? by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, Antarctica was probably ice free at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs.

      Sure, but it's also pretty much the best place to look if you want to find something like a dinosaur in ice. No one said it was likely. You'd likely try to look at places that would have been elevated during the time in question (plateaus, mountain ranges, etc), and therefore more likely to have freezing temperatures.

      You might be interested in the wiki article detailing south polar dinosaurs if you want a bit more of an overview.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    16. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even liquid nitrogen storage would be dodgy after this insane length of time, better to try to use phylogenetics on their descendants to recover sequences although for a more reasonable cost an chance of success just help the "chickenosaurus" guy.... seriously it's a real thing or will be at least!

    17. Re:Did I miss something? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since I've read it and it was junk science anyway, but wan't the major plot point that they couldn't get all the DNA so they filled up the gaps with frogs and that allowed sex changing dinosaurs to breed?
      Long and convoluted perhaps but better than albino apes with stone ping pong bats or doctors with nukes :)

    18. Re:Did I miss something? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Have you seen Clive? Even porn stars have standards.

    19. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The likelihood of finding a dinosaur or specimen with intact dinosaur DNA in ice, however, is ridiculously low. Nevertheless, if I were a billionaire intent on blowing money, I could think of worse ways to spend it than a dinosaur hunting expedition to Antarctica.

      The life of reconstructible DNA is so short that the likelihood of finding intact Dinosaur DNA frozen in ice or in amber is nil. Now, that doesn't rule out fragments, like those found in the second Jurassic Park Book. (Incidentally, that fragment, when examined closely, contains insertions that spell out the name of the scientist who provided Michael Crichton with the data.)

    20. Re:Did I miss something? by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      The likelihood of finding a dinosaur or specimen with intact dinosaur DNA in ice, however, is ridiculously low. Nevertheless, if I were a billionaire intent on blowing money, I could think of worse ways to spend it than a dinosaur hunting expedition to Antarctica.

      The life of reconstructible DNA is so short that the likelihood of finding intact Dinosaur DNA frozen in ice or in amber is nil. Now, that doesn't rule out fragments, like those found in the second Jurassic Park Book. (Incidentally, that fragment, when examined closely, contains insertions that spell out the name of the scientist who provided Michael Crichton with the data.)

      What's your point? I think almost everyone agrees you'd never find and recover a complete DNA genome from any species extinct for over one million years (let alone 65 million years).

      The long-shot is finding enough DNA in a sample to recover useful information from it. When I said "intact DNA," I didn't mean an entire genome, I meant any DNA information which might lead to further developments given advanced technology. It's all rather unlikely, but still far more probable than recovering an intact genome.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  7. I'll be first in line by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know UNIX, so I should be plenty safe.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I'll be first in line by CheshireDragon · · Score: 2

      That little girl 'thought' she was a hacker too. I thought her using the mouse with a graphical interface was so cute.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    2. Re:I'll be first in line by metrix007 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not as cute as all the nerds "in the know" scoffing at the graphical interface in the movie, despite it being the graphical interface used by IRIX (yes, it's a UNIX) at the time.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    3. Re:I'll be first in line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. It wasn't. It was a special side-thing. IRIX's gui was 99% traditional 2D.

    4. Re:I'll be first in line by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      It's available for Linux as well under the name File System Visualizer, but you need ancient build versions. Abandoned long ago; http://fsv.sourceforge.net/
      Could prolly get it to run on Gentoo though.

      Screenshots: http://fsv.sourceforge.net/screenshots/

      Where's the open source community when you need'em?! ____ (I kid!!)

    5. Re:I'll be first in line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah I remember installing an alike on Solaris.

      My word it sucked.

    6. Re:I'll be first in line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not the graphical interface *used* by IRIX. It was just a demo of GL to show up the graphical capabilities of the workstation with an easy to reach data set (the file system.) I used many an IRIX box, and ran the demo only once.

    7. Re:I'll be first in line by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah my mistake. I should have said "could be used" instead.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    8. Re:I'll be first in line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as cute as all the nerds "in the know" scoffing at the graphical interface in the movie, despite it being the graphical interface used by IRIX (yes, it's a UNIX) at the time.

      Wiki page for the GUI file manager "FSN" is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn

      An open source version can be found here: http://fsv.sourceforge.net/

  8. Palmer's Jurassic Park plan extinct by rjames13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Colourful mining billionaire Clive Palmer may have a costly penchant for resurrecting remnants of the past, but he has no intentions of extending that to long-extinct reptiles, sources say.

    The Sunshine Coast Daily reported on rumours that the mining magnate plans to clone a dinosaur from DNA, so it could roam free through a Jurassic Park-style area at his Coolum golf resort.

    It was reported Mr Palmer had been in deep discussion with the people who successfully cloned Dolly the sheep.

    But a source close to Mr Palmer rubbished the suggestion today.

    "It's absolutely ridiculous," the source said.

    However, Mr Palmer is expected to reveal highly-anticipated redevelopment plans for his luxury Coolum resort on Friday.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/palmers-jurassic-park-plan-extinct-20120731-23bvr.html

    1. Re:Palmer's Jurassic Park plan extinct by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      He also saw Frankenstein with Boris Karloff and he is seeking advice to know how he could resurrect Boris Karloff to appoint him as a groom at the Coolum resort.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    2. Re:Palmer's Jurassic Park plan extinct by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      So he was just making free publicity for his resort?

    3. Re:Palmer's Jurassic Park plan extinct by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Suuuure he just doesn't want any protests or government interference until his plan is finished and now his lawyer's put a cap on the leaks ;-)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  9. Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by JayRott · · Score: 1

    I distinctly remember that happening in a movie from my youth. It was even based on a book! As I recall it didn't end well for those involved.

    1. Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I think the eccentric billionaire came out okay.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      I think the eccentric billionaire came out okay.

      If I recall correctly, he falls down a hill at the end of the book, breaks his leg, and gets eaten alive by those cute little chicken sized dinosaurs. It's been a while since I read it though.

    3. Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2

      Not in the novel. Spielberg changed the ending of the movie to allow for a sequel.

    4. Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by Bieeanda · · Score: 1
      Yeah, had Jeff Goldblum in it as a scientist?

      Oh! Got it, it was The Fly!

    5. Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a film where global warming caused an instant ice age, freezing the northern hemisphere to the point where it couldn't sustain life in less than a day. I guess we'd all better start moving south. It could happen any minute!

    6. Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      I distinctly remember that happening in a movie from my youth. It was even based on a book! As I recall it didn't end well for those involved.

      A futuristic amusement park where dinosaurs are brought to life through advanced cloning techniques? I think the movie you're thinking of was "Billy and the Clonasaurus".

    7. Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A futuristic amusement park where dinosaurs are brought to life through advanced cloning techniques? I think the movie you're thinking of was "Billy and the Clonasaurus".

      A futuristic amusement park where various eras of history are brought to life through advanced robotics? I think the movie you're thinking of was "Westworld."

  10. Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the composition of the atmosphere different back then? Even if you could clone a dinosaur you'd probably have to keep it in a tank.

    1. Re:Atmosphere by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Great, so not only will we have a dinosaur, it'll also be able to drive around unimpeded in a large piece of mobile artillery. How is that not a bad idea?

    2. Re:Atmosphere by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Well, at the rate we're using fossil fuels right now, the atmosphere should be just about ready when they're done.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Atmosphere by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Doesn't quite have the ring of "sharks with frickin' laser beams", but the effort is appreciated.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are built to live on the plains of africa and in european swamps, but we can handle mountain air at very high altitudes just fine if we have a few weeks to adapt to it. I very much doubt that a dinosaur would die from trying to breathe modern air. At the very worst, you might have a lethargic dinosaur.

    5. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. The biggest hurdle will be the lack of oxygen. Back then, animals could grew large because the oxygen content was at a very high concentration. This is indicated by the size of insects which are only limited in size by the oxygen concentration.

    6. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, you're forgetting about the inherent weakness of an exoskeleton. Yes, they grew larger back then due to the increased oxygen in the air, but you hit a point fairly quickly where the exoskeleton can't support the extra mass involved with growing huge. Even today's larger tarantulas can't survive a fall from a person's lap when sitting, can you imagine how brittle something twice that size would be?

    7. Re:Atmosphere by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Not enough to cause a problem for dinosaurs, just keep them close to the equator and they'd be fine. Now if you wanted to bring back the mega-insects that lived when there was greater O2 levels, yeah they'd have to stay in a tank.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Atmosphere by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Aren't bird lungs extremely efficient at extracting oxygen from the atmosphere? If dinosaurs had similar lungs, then the low oxygen content won't harm them all that much.

  11. Clive Palmer is a media troll by CoolGopher · · Score: 2

    Palmer just likes the lime light and will say anything to get it. Nothing to see here...

    1. Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Wasn't he meant to be re-building the Titanic last week?

    2. Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have an update as to how the Titanic project is now doing?

    3. Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really pathetic

      TFTFY.

    4. Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does anyone have an update as to how the Titanic project is now doing?

      Sunk without trace.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. Movies? by Sigvatr · · Score: 1

    Has this guy ever seen a movie, ever?

    1. Re:Movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has this guy ever seen a movie, ever?

      Well, you are posting things on the internet. If movies are any indication you are a threat to national security and might write a computer virus with the ability to mutate and spread to humans, thus creating a zombie apocalypse. We'd better kill you now before it is too late.

  13. Missing tag? by baderman · · Score: 2

    Maybe you should add the "what could possibly go wrong" tag? :)

    1. Re:Missing tag? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That only took about 17 and a half minutes longer to pop up than I would have expected...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  14. Put the Dinosaur ON the Titanic. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Have your people call my people, we can get this greenlighted next week! What could possibly go wrong?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Put the Dinosaur ON the Titanic. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Maybe it'll eat that fat chick and her prettyboy boyfriend first and make for a much more interesting movie :D

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Put the Dinosaur ON the Titanic. by zlives · · Score: 1

      if the dino laden titanic than crashes in NY and releases the dino... could he be sued for prior art?

  15. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But nigh impossible. Even if you were to find dinoblood in a piece of amber the DNA would still have decayed to near absolute uselessness.

    Perhaps, just MAYBE, if the amber/mosquito/container for dinoblood was permafrozen since 65+ million years you'd have a shot at it, but even then entropy would probably muck it up.

    A better bet would be to inflict gigantism on ostriches or some other present-day bird, or try to clone some other extinct animal that is not nearly as old as dinosaurs.

    I, for one, would like to see how big an overgrown albatross would be.

    1. Re:Cool by bstag · · Score: 1

      We need dodo birds. Smarter than the average human.

    2. Re:Cool by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      No, just clone a chicken, and you'll have cloned a dinosaur. Not a very big one, though.

  16. There must be a political problem again... by MavEtJu · · Score: 0

    Every time something weird like this comes (or gets reported to come) from Clive Palmer there is a political problem which he needs to divert the attention away from...

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/clive-palmer-says-greens-in-cia-plot-20120320-1vhmm.html

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:There must be a political problem again... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter at this point?

      Gina, Clive and Rupert have poisoned the political system to the degree that Abbott will win in a landslide, with only 1 new policy (maternity leave) since Howard's humbling defeat in 2007.

  17. Source by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Now remember that this is all coming from “a source close to Palmer”

    So possibly Palmer's only been dreaming next to a pint of Foster's "Aaaahhh...wouldn't it be awesome if we could build something like Jurassic Park. Next round is on me."

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

      Fosters? Who drinks Fosters in Oz?
      He should be drinking XXXX Gold in Queensland!

    2. Re:Source by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      He should be drinking XXXX Gold in Queensland!

      They sure spell Tooheys oddly in QLD, don't they, mate? :D

      (The poster is otherwise correct. True Australian Fact: "Fosters" is derived from an old Aboriginal word that means, roughly, "Roo piss that we sell to people who live too far away to throw the bottles back at us.")

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  18. A. Clive Palmer by bug1 · · Score: 1

    Q. What do you get when a fool becomes a billionaire ?

  19. Spin doctoring by gargleblast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is just Clive Palmer's way of deflecting press coverage. Palmer is one of several Australian mining billionaires, and the Treasurer is expected to talk soon about their opposition to mining tax. Clive would rather have http://google.com/search?q=clive+palmer+news link to anything else, e.g. dinosaurs and his new resort.

  20. I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by dingen · · Score: 2

    The billionaire has already been in touch with the scientists who helped clone Dolly the sheep to see what it would take to clone a dinosaur from DNA.

    He does know Dolly died at the age of six, while the average life span of sheep is at least twice that long and lots of sheep (when properly cared for) live up to 20 years?

    Unless he's ok with his T-Rex barely reaching adulthood, he might want to look elsewhere for better cloning scientists.

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    1. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I don't know, if he managed to get a T-Rex to even a day old, I think that would be a pretty big accomplishment regardless.

    2. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by Svartormr · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, if I were a billionaire intent on blowing money, I could think of worse ways to spend it than a dinosaur hunting expedition to Antarctica.

      You may want to check the last time something like this was tried. There's always the possibility of a downside.

    3. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by dingen · · Score: 1

      Scientifically it would be amazing. But I don't think it will exactly make up for the investment as a tourist attraction.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    4. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't dolly either have offspring that survived, or successor clones that did? Because honestly the initial animal doesn't matter, only if it can successfully reach breeding age, mate, and produce offspring.

    5. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft, I dunno about you, but a young T-rex is better than big daddy being 10 kinds of mad for his not-childs hurt leg.

      Plus, he can have "ride the T-rex" now. Who'd want to ride an old and busted adult T-rex?

    6. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude..

      you think _that's_ the main problem? are people so out of touch of capabilities of tech, of degrading of dna and so forth?
      if it was possible you bet your ass people would be cloning t-rexes and not giving a flying shit about them living "only" few years.

      the rumour was already dismissed as ridiculous.

    7. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by compro01 · · Score: 1

      He does know Dolly died at the age of six, while the average life span of sheep is at least twice that long and lots of sheep (when properly cared for) live up to 20 years?

      Dolly's short life wasn't anything to do with being cloned. She developed a type of viral lung cancer common to sheep, which several non-cloned sheep in her flock also died from.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by dingen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I would say too if I were a failing sheep cloning scientist.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    9. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by Bigby · · Score: 1

      But I don't think it would cost $1b per dinosaur. Most of that investment can be used to keep cloning.

    10. Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists by dingen · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you could keep popping out little dino's that die once they start to get dangerous. That's actually pretty clever!

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  21. so sad by pbjones · · Score: 1

    It's sad when a mind degrades to this point. Dolly, IIRC, was one success in hundreds of failures, and had a pretty short and painful life. What's next? have Queensland leave the commonwealth?

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  22. clive palmer by thephydes · · Score: 0

    is a fucking ratbag who is wealthy enough for the fucking idiots of the media to hang off his every word. He was even given the title of "a queensland gem" or some such utter crap, probably because he is a fat ugly cunt with money and an ego to match.

    1. Re:clive palmer by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      is a fucking ratbag who is wealthy enough for the fucking idiots of the media to hang off his every word. He was even given the title of "a queensland gem" or some such utter crap, probably because he is a fat ugly cunt with money and an ego to match.

      Stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think of him.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:clive palmer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The title was "national living treasure" from the NSW national trust. The price tag for that title is unknown.
      He started off as a clerk in the Queensland mines department doing "man in the middle" attacks on companies attempting to buy mining leases, who would find that he had bought the lease before their paperwork had cleared and so they had to buy it off him instead of the government.

  23. Stick with diggin' holes and selling dirt to China by Dan+B. · · Score: 1

    ...because people of your intellect should not be let loose on the world's stage to tarnish the rest of the country.

    The sad part is this peanut comes out with a new "thing" every other week to get his name and/or face in the media. I like how the media plays down his eccentricity by labelling him 'colourful' as opposed to eccentric (or mad) though. That might attract the lawyers...

    --
    Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
  24. I bet.... by ArcadeNut · · Score: 1

    That Hollywood runs with this idea and makes a Movie out of it!

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
  25. His needs by Tiger_Storms · · Score: 1

    If he needs to blow it money on things we all think is stupid how about paying me to spend his money for him, That way he'll be killing two birds with 1 stone.

    --
    This is a Mac, what you have there is an embarrassment to your fellow computer users.
  26. Jurassic park lesson by rossdee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The lesson I got from Jurassic Park was - Don't clone the meat eaters. Brontosuars and Siplodocis may not be as excitinfg as T-Rex, bit they won't eat you.

    1. Re:Jurassic park lesson by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      plus on insightful

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Jurassic park lesson by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Brontosuars and Siplodocis may not be as excitinfg as T-Rex, but they won't eat you.

      How can you be sure? I mean we know they were plant eaters but even a horse will bite you if you piss it off, and these things are substantially bigger than horses.

    3. Re:Jurassic park lesson by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The lesson I got from Jurassic Park was - Don't clone the meat eaters. Brontosuars and Siplodocis may not be as excitinfg as T-Rex, bit they won't eat you.

      The lesson I got was that nature will find a way.

      Imagine a Brontosaurus gone man-eater!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Jurassic park lesson by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      However, they might crush you without even realizing it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Jurassic park lesson by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The lesson I got was to make your fences strong and tall enough that they still work without an electroshock deterrent.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Jurassic park lesson by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      And some of them have stabby bits like Triceratops and Anklyosaurus.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Jurassic park lesson by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Meant Stegosaurus but Ankylosaurus has some nasty bludgeony bits too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Jurassic park lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, I was thinking - "put enough women together and you'll end up with a bunch of lesbians," but I guess I'm okay with your more general version.

    9. Re:Jurassic park lesson by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      The lesson I got from Jurassic Park was - Don't clone the meat eaters. Brontosuars and Siplodocis may not be as excitinfg as T-Rex, bit they won't eat you.

      Think of sixty foot rabbits.

  27. The will be... by JosefSit · · Score: 1

    More important: How will the name of the dinosaur be? Larry?

  28. Why not start off with a nice by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    Woolly Mammoth?

    Almost as cool, easier to find viable DNA, and good practice (just in case).

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  29. Clive just needs to marry Gina Rinehart. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could buy a nice place - Greece, say, or maybe Italy - and set up their Jurassic Park recreation there.

    Then Gina could let her pesky children loose in it and see how long they last. Sort out the family inheritance issues once and for all.

  30. Why not build something original? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    I feel sad for this guy, that his creativity is so limited that he can only imagine wanting things that had already existed: Titanic, dinosaurs, giant ferris wheel... Maybe he'll want a copy of Neuswannstein like Disneyland's, or a copy of the Pyramid of Giza and the Statue of Liberty, like Las Vegas. If rich people were ... more interesting, maybe we'd like them better!

    1. Re:Why not build something original? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I meant "Disney World".... whatever.

  31. Discussion unlikely by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 1

    The billionaire has already been in touch with the scientists who helped clone Dolly the sheep to see what it would take to clone a dinosaur from DNA

    Any scientist with a reputation to protect will keep a million miles from anybody with such a request. Can you imagine the ridicule they'd get at their next conference if their colleagues knew they'd been talking about resurrecting dinosaurs? Maybe one day it will be possible to restore a whole organism from remains millions of years old, but right now the technology is very far from achieving that.

  32. Why clone dinosaurs? by Dracophile · · Score: 1

    I would have thought that, being a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, Clive Palmer would have been well aware that there were already plenty of dinosaurs to go around.

    --
    Athy, athier, athiest.
  33. Clive Palmer is a famous bullshit artist by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    None of this will happen.

  34. dinosaur dream by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    After the dinosaur gets a good taste of what is 2012 A.D. compared to 10^8 B.C. he wishes only one thing: to be extinct again.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:dinosaur dream by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      After the dinosaur gets a good taste of what is 2012 A.D. compared to 10^8 B.C. he wishes only one thing: to be extinct again.

      Keep him away from reality shows.

  35. Bring it on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I support his goals as long as he lets me shoot me some dinosaur so I can hang its head next to the lion and the bear on my wall :)

  36. if only by kenorland · · Score: 1

    Sadly, cloned dinosaurs will probably be pretty fragile creatures. Not only are there bound to be tons of errors in the DNA, the maternal contributions from the surrogate mothers are going to be all wrong. And to top it all off, their symbiotic bacteria and environment are going to be entirely different, and they are going to be exposed to pathogens they have no resistance to. We're lucky if anybody can make those animals survive; they won't be taking over the world any time soon.

  37. Start with Denver cause he was the last dinosaur. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should clone Denver the last dinosaur because he's my friend and a whole lot more. Besides Denver would never kill anyone. He just wants to play on a playground with your children.

  38. Emus by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    Rhinoceros's, sea turtles, komodo dragons, horned toads. These are only some examples of living dinosaurs. The difference between dinosaur and animal is only the date it went extinct.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Emus by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I didn't know rhinoceroses laid eggs?

    2. Re:Emus by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Also didn't mention crocodiles.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  39. We don't *have* fossil dinosaur DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite early promise, virtually all ancient DNA occurrences older than a few hundreds of thousands of years are regarded as bogus, including all supposed dinosaur DNA. People initially thought that some DNA was preserved from dinosaur bones from the Cretaceous Period (more than 65 million years ago), but these were eventually discovered to be due to contamination and amplification errors. The same is true for many other multi-million-year-old supposed fossil DNA occurrences. DNA only seems to survive for a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of years before it is too degraded to yield a meaningful signal. Therefore, the only dinosaur DNA available is from modern or slightly older birds.

    The problem with all dinosaur DNA claims has been known since the 1990s. It's not news to people in the field. So, when he talks to those scientists it's going to be a short conversation. It isn't going to matter how much money he offers. It's not possible. We don't have the ingredients necessary. If he wants dinosaurs, about the best he could do is let a bunch of emus run wild on the resort, and they already have those in Australia.

    If he wanted to try something cool that is in the realm of possibility (although still extraordinarily difficult), he could try to revive an extinct moa. Some of the remains include soft tissues, so their DNA has already been sequenced. Moas would probably be quite impressive if alive again. Their hips are roughly the height of a person, and their head would be about twice as high.

  40. Wrong etymology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dynamite is derived from the Latin for "alive"

    Eh?

    Dynamite: Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary dynam-(from Greek dynamis power)

  41. Raptors to get rid of the cane toads, right? by fygment · · Score: 1

    When will they learn not to introduce foreign species?

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  42. Attentionwhore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy is a massive attention whore. He's mentioned that he wants to have a tilt at the next federal election. Enough people are likely to vote for him based on the fact that they keep hearing his name, even if it is in regards to batshit insane ideas.

  43. Sounds like a good idea. by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

    Australia's wildlife's not nearly dangerous enough, they really could use some dinosaurs running wild.

  44. Please don't.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just know that there will be an escape sooner or later.. and many death will ensue.
    Why would anyone ever want to go out of their way, to bring back predators that were long dead... isn't there enough stuff out there that want to kill us already!?

  45. Me am play gods! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 0

    Crichton was trying to make a point

    That's right kids. Don't use magic science to make dinosaurs, or even more ridiculous magic will happen to propel the plot!

    Anyone who takes Crichton seriously is a moron.

  46. Correct response by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    The billionaire has already been in touch with the scientists who helped clone Dolly the sheep to see what it would take to clone a dinosaur from DNA

    The correct response is obvious: "How much money do you have?

  47. Clone Bettie Page instead by tekrat · · Score: 1

    That's a resort I'd rather visit. Or just clone any living supermodel, or clone sets of supermodels. I mean, is prostitution illegal if the woman is a clone?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Clone Bettie Page instead by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      No don't clone super models, clone women who actually look like women, Bettie Page is an excellent example, and not 10 year old boys.

  48. Video link of Jack Horner's TED talk on this by theurge14 · · Score: 1
  49. Why not.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clone dinosaurs, rebuild the titanic, put the dinosaurs on the titanic and then sail it around the world?

  50. You won't find much in Antarctica by AC-x · · Score: 1

    You won't find any frozen dino remains in Antarctica, at the time of the dinosaurs' extinction it still had a tropical climate, and only iced over after the opening of the drake passage 23 million years ago.

    1. Re:You won't find much in Antarctica by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      You won't find any frozen dino remains in Antarctica, at the time of the dinosaurs' extinction it still had a tropical climate, and only iced over after the opening of the drake passage 23 million years ago.

      Not entirely true about the climate. Certainly, the continent iced over entirely long after the dinosaurs, but there is evidence for sub-freezing temperatures circa 65 million years ago.

      See the wiki on south polar dinosaurs.

      As for it being likely you'd ever find a frozen dinosaur, the answer to that is, of course, "no."

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    2. Re:You won't find much in Antarctica by petsounds · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether any part of the earth at the time of the dinosaurs contained glacial or ice-rich areas, but if it did I would assume flying dinos like the pterosaur would be the only likely candidates for ice preservation. Current knowledge suggests pterosaurs could fly thousands of kilometers at a time, so it's theoretically possible one might occasionally fly off-course and meet its end in an icy grave.

    3. Re:You won't find much in Antarctica by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Sub freezing temperatures 65 million years ago, maybe. Sub freezing temperatures 55 million years ago, probably not:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

      During that time, Earth had almost no ice cover at all. The odds of a cold-blooded dinosaur getting frozen (being somewhere very cold while still alive), happening to be frozen in one of the tiniest of handfuls of places that remained frozen throughout the PETM, and that place staying undisturbed throughout 55 million years of continental drift and shifting mountain ranges, is pretty much slim to none. That's the reason we've never seen anything like it yet.

  51. Cloning not required. Start with Chickens by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    When chicken embryos first start to develop they have teeth buds along their jaw lines and the beginnings of multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA tells the developing embryo to absorb them. Much like human embryo's absorb our own embryonic gill slits. Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside edge.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html

    Note:The 'Daily Mail' isn't the gold standard for scientific reporting but here it does a good job of describing the research so the public can understand it (creationists excepted). Names of people and institutions where the work was done are given allowing Internet searches to the relevant papers and science reporting.

  52. Just like something out of the US old south by dbIII · · Score: 2

    He's got to be where he is by breaking the rules. He started off as a department of mines clerk with inside information and the ability to get leases before anyone outside of the department, got a lot of special treatment later from a government that ended up with half the ministry in jail for taking bribes, then shot from mere millionaire to billionaire on the back of a very strange and dubious deal where he bought Queensland Nickel Refineries for far less than they were making a year in profit. I won't say he's crazy from his claims that a rival political party to the one he bankrolled was "funded by the CIA", I'll say it was a very deliberate lie just like all the rest that got him to where he is.
    I haven't met him, because I'm in the minerals exploration business and Clive doesn't do that sort of thing - he just takes stuff from other people once they've found something. He's a bloated leech that adds nothing and just uses the courts as a blunt instrument.

    I's say with his funding to set up the LNP that he's already brought the dinosaurs back to Queensland.

    1. Re:Just like something out of the US old south by kramulous · · Score: 1

      I's say with his funding to set up the LNP that he's already brought the dinosaurs back to Queensland.

      Nicely played.

      --
      .
  53. More better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The Gods must be crazy' has gone out of style?

    1. Re:More better by khallow · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a cautionary tale since the evil of the Coca Cola (TM) bottle was quickly discovered within like the first ten minutes of the film and the potent tool was returned to the Gods to be safely disposed of. I might have missed some of the plot since I stopped watching about 30 minutes in.

  54. 'a pernicious myth' by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Space science is another such endeavor. It's been used as rationalization for some of the most ridiculously overpriced infrastructure (the International Space Station) ever built. Even the unmanned space programs have devolved into building new overpriced widgets rather than actual space science.

    New Horizons - first mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.
    Kepler - (at least) tripled the number of known exoplanets.
    Messenger - first artificial satellite of Mercury.
    Cassini/Heugens - first spacecraft orbiting Saturn and its moons. Discovered methane lakes on Titan. Discovered cryovolcanoes on Enceladus. First landing on Titan. [...]
    Dawn - first close-up images of major asteroids (Ceres, Vesta). First demonstration of ion thrusters in space.
    Radiation Belt Storm Probes - understanding the (critical to life on earth) Van Allen radiation belt.
    Solar Probe Plus - closest man-made object to the Sun.
    [...]

    It's a pernicious myth that the unmanned space program is not producing new and significant results. I really don't understand why it keeps recurring on this website, amazingly. Is it a myth born out of abject ignorance? (If so, go RTF NASA websites.) Or is it an article of faith of people of a specific political bent, absolutely unsubstantiated by facts or actual knowledge of space science?

    1. Re:'a pernicious myth' by khallow · · Score: 1
      Yep, good examples of my point. Ask yourself this simple little question. If these missions are so worthwhile, then why are there only one or two of them?

      Pluto is not the only Kuiper Belt object you can fly by. Kepler's mission would go a lot faster, if there were more than one such vehicle. First artificial satellite of Mercury? Eh. Cassini/Huygens? Where's the other missions to study every aspect of Saturn and its environment? Enceladus. First landing on Titan. There's more than two moons and icy asteroids to be landing on.

      It's a pernicious myth that the unmanned space program is not producing new and significant results.

      Point here is that we're chosen a few big projects over many more scientific productive projects, by abandoning economies of scale. It's basic engineering and economics.

    2. Re:'a pernicious myth' by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

      "If these missions are so worthwhile, then why are there only one or two of them?"

      There are currently more than a few unmanned NASA space missions;
      http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

      "Point here is that we're chosen a few big projects over many more scientific productive projects, by abandoning economies of scale. It's basic engineering and economics."

      There are no small, inexpensive missions to Saturn. Space is hard. Take a look at the rate of success at NASA, and compare it to that of other nations' space programs. It's not that other nations don't see the value in doing them, or that they see an obvious flaw in our approach.

              - JAXA's Akatsuki-Venus mission failed to enter orbit around Venus last year.
              - Russia's Phobos-Grunt mission to Martian satellites failed to even escape Earth's orbit.
              - Russia's resupply mission to ISS exploded less than six minutes after takeoff. (August 2011)
              - ESA's Mars Express mission lost it's Beagle-2 lander. (crashed? nobody knows.)
              - Cassini's Huygens probe (ESA) had a fair number of problems, including, at one point, its spinning in the opposite to intended direction during descent.
              - India's Chandrayaan lunar probe operated for 312 days before failing, rather than its nominal 2-year mission (probably for thermal reasons.)

      NASA's record, and particularly on Mars, distinguishes itself from those of all other countrys' space programs.

      Is your argument really that NASA is somehow spending more per mission than it could or should? If so, I can assure you, having worked in both, the relative degree of oversite and budgetary controls for NASA is at least an order of magnitude higher than it is for the defense and intelligence communities. And you're getting good money for your tax dollar at NASA, because a lot of the things NASA does simply can't be done anywhere else, at any price. Also there are plenty of people grinding away day and night trying to think of how to do planetary exploration more cheaply. Of that you can be sure.

      Is your argument instead that NASA shouldn't be doing planetary science? Because that's kind of in its charter.

      Is your argument that you don't get why anyone is doing planetary science? You can say "Eh" all you want, but there is very clearly a scientific community that sees the value in this work. Lots of scientists expatriate from other countries to work in or with NASA, for starters.

      Is your argument that we should spend less money on space, and more money on (some other scientific endeavor)? Science is a meritocracy and if you've a great new idea, you should put it forward. But by its very nature, it's hard to know what scientific undertakings will bear fruit.

      NASA's budget is about a half of one percent of your federal tax dollar. If your real aim is to slim down the federal budget, NASA is way down in the noise. You ought to start with defense, intelligence, entitlements, and tax evasion - those are the biggies.

    3. Re:'a pernicious myth' by khallow · · Score: 1

      There are currently more than a few unmanned NASA space missions; http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

      Glancing through this list, confirms my argument. Each such mission is more or less it's own snowflake and doesn't really do much. Why isn't NASA surveying dozens to hundreds of asteroids each year? Putting landers on ten moons a year or rovers every year on Mars? Where is its ISRU research for the Moon and Mars?

      Things are "hard" and cost a lot because almost everything is one-off, optimized to employ the most credentialed people (and generate profit for contractors) rather than do actual science or exploration goals. There's no underlying purpose to NASA space science or unmanned space exploration and it shows both in the limited scope of projects attempted and the general lack of ambition and planning.

      Frankly, I think the only long term research goal that makes sense is to learn about the Solar System and develop useful technologies in order to enable economically viable activity both manned and unmanned throughout the Solar System.

  55. Even if they are small/vegetarian ones by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    As an australian he should know the consequences of introducing a new kind of species in an ecosystem without natural predators.

    And yes, if those cause problems could introduce later their natural predators, that were bigger dinosaurs, and keep the progression hoping that a big meteorite eventually kills again all the big ones. But the real solution is not start it in the first place.

  56. Why not start with a recently extinct species? by ammorris · · Score: 1

    Why not start with something a little less ambitious than full blown dinosaurs? I'm sure there's quite a few relatively recently extinct animals that would generate quite a bit of "buzz" if the were suddenly brought back into existence. I for one would like to see the Dodo Bird brought back. How about the Passenger Pigeon? No human alive today has ever seen a live one... Why not start there?

  57. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the raptor ate your baby

  58. We are already on our way to doing it! by fain0v · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Sequence the genomes of every animal on the planet.
    Step 2: Determine computationally how these animals diverged and back calculate a viable ancestor genomes.
    Step 3: Build synthetic genomes of those animals that are viable.
    Step 4: Transfer those genomes wrapped around histones with the correct modifications back into the an egg.

    The technical problems are things like DNA methylation, back calculating genomes, and the fact that we don't know how most non-coding RNA works for organism development.
    I'm sure I left out a bunch of stuff but we are currently developing the technology to do all these steps!

  59. Go for it! by boltik · · Score: 1

    Let the scientists make a s**tload of genetic and paleontologycal researches, and let the crazy guy pay for it.

  60. Property and feudalism by Immerman · · Score: 1

    There is no need to characterize him as such. He was a thief, plain and simple. He failed to respect natural rights, and violence resulted.

    And which "natural right" would that be? Philosophers typically agreed that life and liberty/freedom are natural rights, and possibly some variant on the pursuit of happiness (though that's largely covered by the first two) - i.e. they are things you would have in the wild until you die. Property was far more contentious and is generally considered a legal rather than natural right. Locke is the only one I can think of offhand that included it - in the wild property is limited to whatever you can defend, and by definition no thief violates that. The problem is that property is a self-catalyzing - the more you have the easier it is to get more, enshrining it on the same level as life and liberty will inevitably lead to a feudalistic society.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Property and feudalism by tmosley · · Score: 1

      No, it leads you AWAY from it. That much is clear from history. In feudalism, the rights of the majority are violated by a small minority. To equate respect for property rights with the total violation of property rights is a level of stupidity and doublethink that I just can't believe human beings are capable of. Please tell me you are Cleverbot or some other such idiotic machine.

    2. Re:Property and feudalism by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I made no such equivocation - I stated that enshrining property rights ON THE SAME LEVEL as life or liberty will lead to feudalism. And how do you figure feudalism a violation of property rights? All the property belongs to the lords, they can do with it what they wish. Life and liberty is also often violated, but even if you guarantee those you're still in a situation where the peasants get their choice of working for whichever lords will have them, on whatever terms they offer - it's extremely difficult to make it on your own when virtually all the capital in the system in tied up by a few people. You want to eat? Well you can't farm or scavenge on your own - that would be theft since all the land belongs to the lords. If you have skills and can muster the tools to use them then you could possibly sell your services, assuming the lords permit you on their land in the first place - after all without their permission you are trespassing.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Property and feudalism by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Are you really that stupid? Serfs were property, you blithering buffoon. They owned nothing of what they made. EVERYTHING was stolen from them. The lords didn't have property rights either. They were just boys with swords who took what they wanted, and built a system that allowed them to do it.

      I guess you missed the part where property rights were enshrined followed promptly by the death of feudalism in Europe, and slightly more slowly the death of slavery in the US. I mean, it can't get much clearer than that. But you have some sort of insane beef with the concept of "property" that you would twist the world and everything in it into some incomprehensible narrative in order to force your idiotic idea to be the truth.

      Your thought process is appears to be nothing but doublethink.

    4. Re:Property and feudalism by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How exactly was it stolen from them if it, and they, were owned by the lords? You're simply throwing my own point back at me - if you let property rights become so excessive that a tiny minority can concentrate ownership of almost all of it then you end up with something very like feudalism. What difference does it make if your weapon is a sword or a lawyer?

      Let's take a more modern example - the Gilded age of the 19th century US when the robber-barons had cornered the market on much of the nations capital - same thing happened. You ended up with "company towns" where the "barons" owned everything except (technically) the people. You get paid in company scrip with which you rent your company barracks and buy your overprice food and supplies at the company store. Sure, you could theoretically leave, but where would you go? You have no money, virtually no property, and almost certainly won't be allowed back. And you had the swords come out on a regular basis as well - I can only think of a couple of all-out massacres, but the threat of violence was always there to keep people from forming unions or smuggling in reasonably-priced goods from outside.

      I'm not saying there isn't a place for property rights - I think most everyone can agree that what you earn should be yours - but what about what your property earns? After all when you make an investment, *you* aren't doing any work - your wealth is doing the work, you are simply steering it. If you treat the proceeds from that in exactly the same way as wealth that you earned directly then you get a situation where property will inevitably concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, and eventually *you* will be somebody else's property - in practice if not by law.

      I'll make an admittedly bad analogy to slavery - it's a very ancient practice and in most times and places the way it worked was you go to war or raid your neighbors and capture some of them to be slaves. You then profit from their labor or by selling them off as they are something you "earned" through combat. Their children; however, were born free, and had the opportunity to earn their own place in the society they were born into. That made slavery a self-limiting practice - if you wanted more slaves somebody had to go risk their lives capturing them and breaking their spirit, which would tend to piss off your neighbors and increase the chances they'd raid you back and YOU would end up someone's slave. As abhorrent practices go I think that's a pretty equitable way to go about it.

      The US on the other hand did something much less common - we declared that a slave was property of the same sort as a farm animal, and claimed ownership over their children as well. That made slavery into something much uglier that was not self-limiting - as long as you could keep breeding your "stock" you had a ready supply of new slaves with very little risk or expense to yourself, and no pissed-off neighbors that might steal away your own children. If it weren't for sympathetic outsiders well-fortified with conflicting business interests and some political allies-of-convenience, the practice might never have been ended.

      Okay, it's late, and I sort of lost the thread of the analogy there, and honestly I'm getting bored with this whole argument. So I'll just wrap up with this: There are two distinct kinds of property: One is what you might call natural property, the things you could claim as yours in the wild - your home, your food, your flock - the things which you and yours personally maintain and defend on an ongoing basis. The other is what I'll call "capital" property and it's a legal construct - if I'm walking through the woods and pick some apples from a tree then first the apples belonged to the tree, and then they belonged to me. If some lord claims the woods belong to him and that I needed permission to pick the apples then that claim is based on a legal framework - not natural rights. I would say the same applies to, for example people renting a house - natural rights would

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Property and feudalism by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Christ almighty, you don't even know what property is.

      Human beings aren't property. EVER. To consider them as such is a violation of natural rights, and to conflate a system where they are such with one where they aren't is to compare a room that is clean with one that is ankle deeps in sewage and be unable to find a difference.

      You go ahead and live in sewage, I'll take freedom and clean living, thanks.

      And FYI, property rights come from the concept of homesteading, and no-where else. They are transferable (voluntarily) once established. They can also be abandoned. Not so under feudalism. Everything belongs to the guy with the biggest army, and everyone else gets their "rights" from him, at his will, to the extent they can field an army for him, or for themselves. Maybe someday you will understand the difference, and maybe you will notice the diametrically opposed methods, and the diametrically opposed outcomes. Until that day, I invite you to go live in North Korea, where your ideas have been fully implemented, and no-one may own any capital of any sort.

    6. Re:Property and feudalism by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree completely, we're obviously talking at cross purposes here. And don't be obtuse - of course someone owns all the land in North Korea - The Glorious Leader and his entourage . No matter what official doctrine says about ownership, the man who can destroy your livelihood by throwing you off the land your family has worked for generations and give it to someone else is the one who truly owns it.

        Let me run a little thought experiment if you will. I'll even restrict property strictly to it's most concrete and enduring form - land.

      Lets say we start with an empty, idyllic continent and a bunch of equally wealthy, dedicated, hard-working homesteaders that divvy it up into personally-owned lots. Now the universe is a chaotic place, so over time some of those homesteaders will get lucky, and others not so much. Eventually times will get so bad for some of them that they'll sell their property to one of their luckier neighbors and try their hand at something else, just so they can keep eating.

      Now the newly expanded landowners have an advantage over their compatriots who still only have a single plot of land, since quite a few expenses increase more slowly than the profit potential with expanding acreage, so they can generate more net wealth per acre, making them more resilient to hard times, and more able to seize opportunity when it presents itself

      What happens when over a period of several generations more and more of the homesteaders voluntarily transfer their property rights to the wealthy landowners, who in turn voluntarily transferred their rights to to wealthy businessman, etc, etc, etc, until all the land is owned by only a handful of land tycoons? Because that's what will happen in any system that doesn't have some sort of major counter-point to the self-catalyzing power of wealth. And it will happen even if every single person in the world is equally skilled, dedicated and hard-working. Because at the end of the day random chance always plays a roll, and those with more assets are in a better position to play the odds.

      I'll tell you what happens - those tycoons now have near-absolute control over food, water, and transportation, and that make them the de-facto owners of all the landless descendents of the original homesteaders. If you want food, you will work for them, directly or indirectly. If they decide they want something of yours you will give it to them on whatever terms they offer, or you flee and hope the next tycoon will overlook you,because the alternative is starvation. And when men have that kind of power it almost inevitably corrupts them. Why stop at demanding your blanket when they can demand your wife, or for that matter your life? Who will object to a sadistic tycoon that flays you alive for his amusement, when anybody who does so risks starvation or worse themselves? In short the tycoons will have become lords.

      Of course there is a counterbalance to this tendency, one that has shown itself again and again throughout history - people get fed up with being treated like animals and you get a popular uprising. As you so rightly point out knights are little more than serfs with a horse and sword, if the lords become abusive enough they will eventually find their military turning on them, and the whole thing comes crashing down, property gets redistributed, a new golden age of individual rights and liberty undreamt of in generations begins... and promptly starts to fall prey to the same cycle all over again.
      Each time though things to get a little better than they were the last time around, and don't fall quite as far when they go sour, because the people *do* learn.

      Still, if we want a society to stand the test of time without requiring violent revolt we need to find some way to rein in the abuses of property rights . I don't know what that might be exactly, and I don't really expect it to stop the current cycle from collapsing, but I think discussing the topic now, while we have the leisure to do so, can only help matters when the time comes to rebuild and leisure is at a premium.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  61. Dino DNA Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Christian I do not accept the belief that dinosaurs are millions of years old. From a scientific perspective DNA simply cannot last millions of years so wouldn't finding dino DNA be a proof that they are not infact millions of years old? From a Biblical perspective it should be easy enough to find lots of dinosaur DNA. From an evoluationary perspective they should not be able to find any dinsoaur DNA at all.

  62. Dinosaurs in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to worry, he's planning on setting it loose in _Australia_. Poor thing won't last 5 minutes.

  63. Think!! Food for humans or Humans for Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is not enough food on earth to feed human, Do we want to share with Dinosaurs now? or be food for them to reduce population..THINK

  64. I did not moderate your comments by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    I see you've been hit pretty hard for your trolling yesterday. Just to make it abundantly clear, I did not moderate your comments down. For that matter, it has been a very, very, long time since I last had any mod points to hand out.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  65. insight of the titanic vs dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are u crazy are u trying to inger people i think and believe ur best thing to do is rebuild the titanic instead of recreating dinosaurs