1278: "Giraffes"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

project2051
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:20 pm UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby project2051 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:56 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
YellowYeti wrote:Ooh, a giraffe with a sauropod tail and an elephants trunk? I like your thinking! Can we give it eagles wings at the same time?
And cupholders!


Image

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9119
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

addams wrote:Can you imagine coniferous cows?

Treeish!
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby lgw » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:34 pm UTC

addams wrote:Can you imagine coniferous cows?
Like sharks, they would be.
Land sharks. Thanks be to the Gods.


I don't think coniferous cows would be anything like land sharks, but I want one for my yard! It needs more greenery in the winter.
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby addams » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:43 pm UTC

lgw wrote:
addams wrote:Can you imagine coniferous cows?
Like sharks, they would be.
Land sharks. Thanks be to the Gods.


I don't think coniferous cows would be anything like land sharks, but I want one for my yard! It needs more greenery in the winter.

Spell check needs to be checked? oh.
We have already covered the photosynthesissising drooling green cows.
We must move on to herbivores that by the slip of a misplaced gene become meat eaters.

How will this effect Dairy Farming practices?
How less charming the plush Giraffe with bloody fangs?

Children cuddle up to a Raptor. Why not?
That thing is no less frightening than Uncle Fester.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby Wnderer » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:54 pm UTC

Or Elephants with Triceratops tails.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby speising » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:56 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
musashi1600 wrote:Relevant Alpha Centauri quote:

Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There are no genes for trunks. What you CAN do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant.

-Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Nonlinear Genetics"


I'm pretty sure that has remained accurate over the past fourteen years, but someone else who knows more about genetics can elaborate on that.

Yes, I remember reading (probably in a Dawkins book) that what turns that chemistry into construction of physical structures is embryology, and that embryology wasn't (at the time at least) very well understood. But it seems to depends in part on the environment in which that construction takes place, which in the case of a mammal is the uterus of another mammal built from similar DNA, making the genes themselves a kind of recursive definition of the organism they produce. In other words, the DNA doesn't tell you how to make a giraffe from first principles: it tells you how to make a giraffe using another giraffe. Presumably there's a lot of information in the existing giraffe; is there potentially more than in the DNA itself?

BTW, "giraffe" totally stoppped sounding like a word.


wait, does this mean, if we put a fertilized giraffe egg in an elephants uterus, it would develop into an elephant? or a giraphant?

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:35 pm UTC

speising wrote:
orthogon wrote:
musashi1600 wrote:Relevant Alpha Centauri quote:

Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There are no genes for trunks. What you CAN do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant.

-Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Nonlinear Genetics"


I'm pretty sure that has remained accurate over the past fourteen years, but someone else who knows more about genetics can elaborate on that.

Yes, I remember reading (probably in a Dawkins book) that what turns that chemistry into construction of physical structures is embryology, and that embryology wasn't (at the time at least) very well understood. But it seems to depends in part on the environment in which that construction takes place, which in the case of a mammal is the uterus of another mammal built from similar DNA, making the genes themselves a kind of recursive definition of the organism they produce. In other words, the DNA doesn't tell you how to make a giraffe from first principles: it tells you how to make a giraffe using another giraffe. Presumably there's a lot of information in the existing giraffe; is there potentially more than in the DNA itself?

BTW, "giraffe" totally stoppped sounding like a word.


wait, does this mean, if we put a fertilized giraffe egg in an elephants uterus, it would develop into an elephant? or a giraphant?

Well, no. You would kind of need a sperm cell too or modify the egg cell to create a zygote with another complementary set of DNA (although inserting a zygote would be easier), besides, it wouldn't develop at all anyway... I don't think the environment is that deciding anyway, the environment is much less complex for some non-placental animals and a lot of them aren't all that different...

On another note: while we don't know how to add a sauropod tail to a giraffe, we do know how to add another set of giraffe limbs to the giraffe...

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9119
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:38 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:On another note: while we don't know how to add a sauropod tail to a giraffe, we do know how to add another set of giraffe limbs to the giraffe...

Spideraffe!
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby addams » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:51 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
speising wrote:
orthogon wrote:
musashi1600 wrote:Relevant Alpha Centauri quote:

Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There are no genes for trunks. What you CAN do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant.

-Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Nonlinear Genetics"


I'm pretty sure that has remained accurate over the past fourteen years, but someone else who knows more about genetics can elaborate on that.

Yes, I remember reading (probably in a Dawkins book) that what turns that chemistry into construction of physical structures is embryology, and that embryology wasn't (at the time at least) very well understood. But it seems to depends in part on the environment in which that construction takes place, which in the case of a mammal is the uterus of another mammal built from similar DNA, making the genes themselves a kind of recursive definition of the organism they produce. In other words, the DNA doesn't tell you how to make a giraffe from first principles: it tells you how to make a giraffe using another giraffe. Presumably there's a lot of information in the existing giraffe; is there potentially more than in the DNA itself?

BTW, "giraffe" totally stoppped sounding like a word.


wait, does this mean, if we put a fertilized giraffe egg in an elephants uterus, it would develop into an elephant? or a giraphant?

Well, no. You would kind of need a sperm cell too or modify the egg cell to create a zygote with another complementary set of DNA (although inserting a zygote would be easier), besides, it wouldn't develop at all anyway... I don't think the environment is that deciding anyway, the environment is much less complex for some non-placental animals and a lot of them aren't all that different...

On another note: while we don't know how to add a sauropod tail to a giraffe, we do know how to add another set of giraffe limbs to the giraffe...

It might take a while and a few false starts.
You can get there!

Zygotes don't have the chemical that makes them fall into and be embraced by the uterus.
Keep working on it. You will get there. Then we will have fun news, again.

"Elephant Gives Birth to Healthy Bouncing Baby Boy."
Baby and genetic parents are doing well.
Elephant is experiencing separation anxiety.

That is Not the way Ganesh got an Elephant's head.
It is a good story for a little kid.

How did you think that happened?
Elephantitis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantiasis
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
3rdtry
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:46 pm UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby 3rdtry » Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:38 am UTC

addams wrote:Bouncing Baby Boy

TIL bouncing means "Vigorous; healthy".

WTF English.

Hairy
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 11:33 am UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby Hairy » Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:47 am UTC

I object to all this. Geneticists have more important problems to be getting on with instead of wasting time and money on such frivolity. In particular the disturbing lack of foot high "pygmy" elephants for use as pets. Why are we still going without such ideal foot stools? These are questions which need answering.

nate1481
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:18 am UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby nate1481 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:02 pm UTC

The alt text immediately made me think of this a kickstarter that would cover this: help-fund-my-robot-army

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby Coyoty » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:53 pm UTC

Quite a lot of people thought the pygmy giraffe in the DirectTV commercials with the opulent Russian gangster was real, and wanted one.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:50 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:I don't think the environment is that deciding anyway, the environment is much less complex for some non-placental animals and a lot of them aren't all that different...


One of the reasons frogs, say, have significantly more DNA than humans is because their DNA has to allow for all sorts of environmental variations and still produce something close enough to a standard frog to survive long enough to reproduce, and then to reproduce successfully with another near-enough-standard frog...

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby da Doctah » Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:58 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:On another note: while we don't know how to add a sauropod tail to a giraffe, we do know how to add another set of giraffe limbs to the giraffe...

Spideraffe!

One day in a pet store I noticed a glass case with an open top, wood shavings, and assorted small-animal play items, but couldn't see the animal. Finally noticed a pair of beady eyes looking out from under the plastic dome at the other side of the enclosure, and as I checked it out from a couple of other angles, decided it was a chinchilla pretending to be a tortoise.

A chinchortoise, if you will. Because the word tortilla is already taken.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby addams » Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:05 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
BlitzGirl wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:On another note: while we don't know how to add a sauropod tail to a giraffe, we do know how to add another set of giraffe limbs to the giraffe...

Spideraffe!

One day in a pet store I noticed a glass case with an open top, wood shavings, and assorted small-animal play items, but couldn't see the animal. Finally noticed a pair of beady eyes looking out from under the plastic dome at the other side of the enclosure, and as I checked it out from a couple of other angles, decided it was a chinchilla pretending to be a tortoise.

A chinchortoise, if you will. Because the word tortilla is already taken.

Tortilla is a wonderful name for such a creature.
It is simply another homonym.

Tortilla for beans and rice.
Tortilla to add to beans and rice on a tortilla.

Chinchilla don't have much meat. Do they?
They are Tribbles of some sort. correct?

Except when they have a shell. Then they are Tortilla.
Tortilla Chinchilla are rare? I have never seen one.

The other kind are weird. Softest fur of any creature I have ever captured.
As soft as Cheney's hands? What is the standard for softness?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:14 am UTC

But imagine if giraffes could do this with their tails too!
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

gladiolas
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:41 am UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby gladiolas » Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:25 am UTC

pkcommando wrote:
dms33 wrote:I would fund the heck out of that kickstarter..

"Let this abomination unto the Lord begin!"

I can't help but feel that if we are to truly give the Almighty the finger, there needs to be some platypus in there as well.


No, the platypus is supposed to be proof the Almighty has a sense of humor. Sticking out the tongue might be more polite. (Not that I would do that, either.)

If it has platypus genes, it could lay eggs. Easter eggs. Faberge Easter eggs. Complete with those fancy holders. Hardboiled Faberge Easter eggs with those fancy holders. And when they are opened they play a little tune.

And don't forget the constellation of Camelopardalis, the Camel-leopard, aka, the Giraffe.

And also what Tim Conway did with the circus elephant idea in an episode of The Carol Burnett Show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8A55T78W28

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby azule » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:40 pm UTC

The image has been replaced!

It's smaller now.

:|

:(

explainxkcd has both files, but no comments noting the change.
12:49, 28 October 2013
Image
372 × 331 (12 KB)

04:38, 16 October 2013
Image
743 × 662 (25 KB)

What the hell?

So, the smaller size replaced the larger 12 days later (according to the files). The last post in this thread is that same day.

This is very odd, now I wonder/worry that other comics are receiving a drastic change like this.

I have my own copy of the image from back in the day. But, I thought I could link to these images and they'd be the same. *shakes head*
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9119
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby BlitzGirl » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:47 pm UTC

Good mustard catch, azule. The smaller image seems to be the size originally meant to be uploaded, and the accidental large image didn't get caught until some span of time after the comic went live.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby addams » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:49 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I don't think the environment is that deciding anyway, the environment is much less complex for some non-placental animals and a lot of them aren't all that different...


One of the reasons frogs, say, have significantly more DNA than humans is because their DNA has to allow for all sorts of environmental variations and still produce something close enough to a standard frog to survive long enough to reproduce, and then to reproduce successfully with another near-enough-standard frog...

Wait one moment.
Are you Joking?

Do you really believe that?
Why?

What part are you most attached to?
We can look for links; If you want.

Is this what you were thinking of?
Since then, evolutionary changes in chromosome numbers have taken place about twenty times faster in mammals than in frogs, which means that speciation is occurring more rapidly in mammals.

Did you make a Joke and it went right over my head?

My understanding is the Quiet of No Frogs is a Bad Thing.
Because Frogs are Not environmentally resilient.

Frogs were our Canaries in The Mine.

ech. Not all Frogs belong everywhere Frogs can thrive.
Frogs can be complicated people. They are not all the same.

Do you know about the questionable transport practices of some commercial goods?
Well..Someone took a Frog to Hawaii. Everyone likes Hawaii. Even the Frogs.
http://www.phschool.com/science/science ... frogs.html

That is not a story of Frog's resilience to environmental variations.
Frogs are Famous, to me, for being Delicate Little Flowers.

They have that permeable skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Skin

You or I can take a bath in Arsenic and come out no worse for wear.
Frogs can't do that. I didn't get the Joke. Explain?

Frogs are darned cute.
https://www.google.com/search?q=frogs+a ... n&tbm=isch
They tend to be meat eaters,
But they don't eat people.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:57 pm UTC

addams wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I don't think the environment is that deciding anyway, the environment is much less complex for some non-placental animals and a lot of them aren't all that different...


One of the reasons frogs, say, have significantly more DNA than humans is because their DNA has to allow for all sorts of environmental variations and still produce something close enough to a standard frog to survive long enough to reproduce, and then to reproduce successfully with another near-enough-standard frog...

Wait one moment.
Are you Joking?

Do you really believe that?
Why?


A human foetus develops in a carefully controlled environment, so human DNA can safely assume all sorts of things like the temperature, pH, concentration of various chemicals, lack of light, limited vibration, etc, etc and just needs to code for the proteins that develop a human baby under those conditions.

A frog egg develops in a pond, where the weather can impose temperature variations of tens of degrees, significant changes in chemical concentrations, variation in light levels, etc. Until the developing tadpole can regulate its own internal environment, the chemical processes of its development will be significantly affected by external conditions - so frog DNA has to code for the proteins that work at 20C, 18C, 16C, 14C, 12C, 10C, when it's sunny, when it's cloudy, when there's runoff from acidic soil, etc, etc...

To use the recipe-book analogy, human DNA tells you how to make bread using a bread-maker; frog DNA tells you how to make bread by hand - which, as housewives through the ages could tell you is a finicky process, that requires experience and judgement to produce the best results consistently despite changing conditions - except the frog DNA tells you how to vary the recipe according to conditions.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby addams » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:40 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
addams wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I don't think the environment is that deciding anyway, the environment is much less complex for some non-placental animals and a lot of them aren't all that different...


One of the reasons frogs, say, have significantly more DNA than humans is because their DNA has to allow for all sorts of environmental variations and still produce something close enough to a standard frog to survive long enough to reproduce, and then to reproduce successfully with another near-enough-standard frog...

Wait one moment.
Are you Joking?

Do you really believe that?
Why?


A human foetus develops in a carefully controlled environment, so human DNA can safely assume all sorts of things like the temperature, pH, concentration of various chemicals, lack of light, limited vibration, etc, etc and just needs to code for the proteins that develop a human baby under those conditions.

A frog egg develops in a pond, where the weather can impose temperature variations of tens of degrees, significant changes in chemical concentrations, variation in light levels, etc. Until the developing tadpole can regulate its own internal environment, the chemical processes of its development will be significantly affected by external conditions - so frog DNA has to code for the proteins that work at 20C, 18C, 16C, 14C, 12C, 10C, when it's sunny, when it's cloudy, when there's runoff from acidic soil, etc, etc...

To use the recipe-book analogy, human DNA tells you how to make bread using a bread-maker; frog DNA tells you how to make bread by hand - which, as housewives through the ages could tell you is a finicky process, that requires experience and judgement to produce the best results consistently despite changing conditions - except the frog DNA tells you how to vary the recipe according to conditions.

Do you have frogs mixed up with Water Bears?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

Humans don't stand a chance against those things.
Frogs? We can kick their cute little asses.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:48 am UTC

troyp wrote:Giraffes with sauropod tails? What is this random nonsense, xkcd? I like dinosaurs (and giraffes) as much as the next guy, but seriously.

Nothing wrong with random nonsense.

da Doctah wrote:
YellowYeti wrote:Ooh, a giraffe with a sauropod tail and an elephants trunk? I like your thinking! Can we give it eagles wings at the same time?
And cupholders!

If you have the DNA sequence for cupholders it might be possible, if the issue musashi1600 noted is a non issue.
However, assuming you don't I would advise a saddle with cupholders. Easier.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:45 pm UTC

How about something in the antler department for the cupholder issue? Or at least this would add a steering wheel. I like moose antlers.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby orthogon » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:59 pm UTC

And a repurposed marsupial pouch would be ideal for stowing the road atlas.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby addams » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:29 pm UTC

You people are creating the most unlikely of beasts.
Where are you going to keep it?
Australia?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1278: "Giraffes"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:54 pm UTC

addams wrote:You people are creating the most unlikely of beasts.
Where are you going to keep it?
Australia?

Sure, why not? That island is mostly uninhabited, anyway. (Or Canada would work for the same reason if the animal prefers the numbing cold to the blistering heat!)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests