×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Billionaire Wants To Build Jurassic Park-Style Resort

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.

Australia 409

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

409 comments

Awesome! (5, Funny)

Elgonn (921934) | about a year and a half ago | (#40838947)

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

Re:Awesome! (5, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40838989)

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

Re:Awesome! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839003)

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.

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839133)

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.

Re:Awesome! (5, Informative)

Lotana (842533) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839329)

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!!!"

Re:Awesome! (5, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839527)

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.

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839649)

science that is applied for dubious rather than nobel goals

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

Re:Awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839715)

>science for PROFIT is extremely risky.

This is even more stupid.

Re:Awesome! (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839509)

>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.

Re:Awesome! (2)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839067)

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

Re:Awesome! (3, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839253)

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

Re:Awesome! (2)

Kam Solusar (974711) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839109)

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

-- Ian Malcolm, Jurrassic Park

Re:Awesome! (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839275)

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.

Re:Awesome! (2)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839315)

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

Re:Awesome! (5, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839371)

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.)

Re:Awesome! (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839595)

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.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839657)

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.

Re:Awesome! (2)

nyctopterus (717502) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839445)

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.

Re:Awesome! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839541)

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.

Re:Awesome! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839359)

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/

Re:Awesome! (2)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839481)

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

Re:Awesome! (2)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839575)

>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.

Re:Awesome! (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839631)

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.

Re:Awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839381)

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

And that is one of the most stupid points ever.

It might work out OK for you as long as you only apply it to thing you don't like but if you start to apply it on everything that people don't like things become pretty problematic.
Don't drive cars, what if the brakes stop working and you run over someone. Don't build railroads, there might be a train accident.
"What could possibly go wrong" is bullshit from a retard until someone can present statistics or a reasonable prediction that show the likelihood for something happening.

Re:Awesome! (4, Informative)

niftydude (1745144) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839013)

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.

Re:Awesome! (3, Insightful)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839103)

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

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839031)

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

Re:Awesome! (2)

easyTree (1042254) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839431)

On communist earth, us eat dinosaurs.

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

Interesting...And.. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40838981)

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

Re:Interesting...And.. (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839055)

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?

Re:Interesting...And.. (3, Funny)

detritus. (46421) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839079)

Which one, Jurassic Park or Titanic?

Re:Interesting...And.. (4, Funny)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839309)

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.

Re:Interesting...And.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839351)

Porn for females.

Re:Interesting...And.. (3, Funny)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839365)

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)

Yea ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40838987)

And I want a pony.

Meh (3)

srussia (884021) | about a year and a half ago | (#40838993)

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

Re:Meh (2)

Teancum (67324) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839239)

If there is a theme park for weird science, I'd say it would have to be the Exploratorium [exploratorium.edu]. 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.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839435)

Or the holodeck....

Did I miss something? (2)

Apotekaren (904220) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839007)

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.

Re:Did I miss something? (5, Interesting)

pegasustonans (589396) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839135)

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.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

tawt (1193211) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839195)

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

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839589)

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

yes.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839593)

Though, I wouldn't hold your breath.

And you most certainly shouldn't hold his breath.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839607)

>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).

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839287)

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.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839549)

  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!

I'll be first in line (2, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839009)

I know UNIX, so I should be plenty safe.

Re:I'll be first in line (2)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839123)

That little girl 'thought' she was a hacker too. I thought her using the mouse with a graphical interface was so cute.

Re:I'll be first in line (3, Informative)

metrix007 (200091) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839333)

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.

Palmer's Jurassic Park plan extinct (4, Informative)

rjames13 (1178191) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839015)

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 [brisbanetimes.com.au]

Re:Palmer's Jurassic Park plan extinct (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839289)

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.

Wasn't this the plot of a movie? (1)

JayRott (1524587) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839017)

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.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839077)

I think the eccentric billionaire came out okay.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839137)

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.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839379)

Yeah, had Jeff Goldblum in it as a scientist?

Oh! Got it, it was The Fly!

Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839387)

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!

Re:Wasn't this the plot of a movie? (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839683)

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".

Atmosphere (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839019)

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.

Re:Atmosphere (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839321)

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?

Re:Atmosphere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839687)

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.

Clive Palmer is a media troll (2)

CoolGopher (142933) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839033)

Palmer just likes the lime light and will say anything to get it. Nothing to see here...

Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839071)

Agreed. Wasn't he meant to be re-building the Titanic last week?

Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839115)

Does anyone have an update as to how the Titanic project is now doing?

Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839473)

This is really interesting
saadepunjab.com

Re:Clive Palmer is a media troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839529)

This is really pathetic

TFTFY.

Put the Dinosaur ON the Titanic. (1)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839061)

Have your people call my people, we can get this greenlighted next week! What could possibly go wrong?

-jcr

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839063)

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.

There must be a political problem again... (0)

MavEtJu (241979) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839091)

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 [smh.com.au]

Re:There must be a political problem again... (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839465)

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.

Source (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839153)

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."

Re:Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40839413)

Fosters? Who drinks Fosters in Oz?
He should be drinking XXXX Gold in Queensland!

Re:Source (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839565)

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.")

Spin doctoring (5, Interesting)

gargleblast (683147) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839181)

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 [google.com] link to anything else, e.g. dinosaurs and his new resort.

I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists (2)

dingen (958134) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839197)

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.

Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839483)

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.

Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists (1)

dingen (958134) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839709)

Scientifically it would be amazing. But I don't think it will exactly make up for the investment as a tourist attraction.

Re:I don't know about these "Dolly" scientists (1)

Svartormr (692822) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839535)

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 [hplovecraft.com] was tried. There's always the possibility of a downside.

so sad (1)

pbjones (315127) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839205)

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?

clive palmer (0)

thephydes (727739) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839241)

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.

Stick with diggin' holes and selling dirt to China (1)

Dan B. (20610) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839249)

...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...

His needs (1)

Tiger_Storms (769548) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839377)

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.

Jurassic park lesson (4, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839391)

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.

Re:Jurassic park lesson (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#40839695)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...