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.
We have the technology today. We don't have sufficient dino DNA sequenced, but woolly mammoths are already being legitimately debateted.
And since humans most likely drove mammoths to extinction it would only be a fair remedy that we undid one of the first ecological disasters that early humans caused: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
It was science fiction in the sense that Asimov's books were science fiction - the tech existed to build robots vis-a-vis dinosaurs, just not in a way that was at that time feasible. Now both Asimov's books and Crichton's book is technically possible to execute and it's become more clear that it's at least not impossible as many thought for decades after the books were written.
It's technically feasible to build a dinosaur today, hell, we now know we actually HAVE dinosaurs still in existence (some shark and
Well, even in the summary he says it wouldn't be with real dinosaurs...just really big and strange creatures. We could probably do that given time...though I don't think a decade would be long enough, and it might well take more cash (in a crash project) than Musk could supply. I'd like to see a shovel-tusker, but the environment that it used to live in no longer exists, so it probably couldn't survive.
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: (Score:3)
The ability to manipulate DNA in arbitrary ways and grow whatever you want in an egg will definitely happen eventually.
Heck, we already have Kinder Joy. That's progress right there.
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the technology today. We don't have sufficient dino DNA sequenced, but woolly mammoths are already being legitimately debateted.
And since humans most likely drove mammoths to extinction it would only be a fair remedy that we undid one of the first ecological disasters that early humans caused: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:2)
Well our climate change would probably drive them to extinction again.
Not sure what "fairness" has to do with it.
Re: (Score:0)
It was science fiction in the sense that Asimov's books were science fiction - the tech existed to build robots vis-a-vis dinosaurs, just not in a way that was at that time feasible. Now both Asimov's books and Crichton's book is technically possible to execute and it's become more clear that it's at least not impossible as many thought for decades after the books were written.
It's technically feasible to build a dinosaur today, hell, we now know we actually HAVE dinosaurs still in existence (some shark and
Re: (Score:2)
Well, even in the summary he says it wouldn't be with real dinosaurs...just really big and strange creatures. We could probably do that given time...though I don't think a decade would be long enough, and it might well take more cash (in a crash project) than Musk could supply. I'd like to see a shovel-tusker, but the environment that it used to live in no longer exists, so it probably couldn't survive.
Re: (Score:0)