It wasn't science fiction, just silly childish fun. Invoking it was stupid vs. having some intelligent commentary on the subject but apparently/person saying anything with "dinosaurs" is now newsworthy.
Ooooh! DINOS! Movies! That's clickbait for retards.
I really want to understand the deliberate suckification of Slashdot. The "quality" of so many threads is bad enough to be considered sabotage and far from usefully techy.
How was Jurassic Park not science fiction? It was based on a science that does not exist, and one day will. The ability to manipulate DNA in arbitrary ways and grow whatever you want in an egg will definitely happen eventually.
There are plenty of less demanding species. How about the Great Awk? Humans wiped that one out, but recently enough that there are plenty of museum specimens that should provide decent genetic samples. It was a good bird, would be nice to have them back.
Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't science fiction, just silly childish fun. Invoking it was stupid vs. having some intelligent commentary on the subject but apparently /person saying anything with "dinosaurs" is now newsworthy.
Ooooh! DINOS! Movies! That's clickbait for retards.
I really want to understand the deliberate suckification of Slashdot. The "quality" of so many threads is bad enough to be considered sabotage and far from usefully techy.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:2)
We have the technology today. We don't have sufficient dino DNA sequenced, but woolly mammoths are already being legitimately debateted.
Re: Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:2)
There are plenty of less demanding species. How about the Great Awk? Humans wiped that one out, but recently enough that there are plenty of museum specimens that should provide decent genetic samples. It was a good bird, would be nice to have them back.