xkcd

by **aion7** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:01 am UTC

http://xkcd.com/531/

Title text:"Kids are genetic experiments. We're just experimenting responsibly!"

More things should follow the Jurassic Park approach.

by **Sirobin** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:02 am UTC

I'm definitely missing something in this comic...

by **Freiberg** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:02 am UTC

They are the same people from http://xkcd.com/441/, right?

by **joee** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:02 am UTC

Link to the comic pls

Also, heh. Poor kid.

by **qbg** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:03 am UTC

That probably won't come out well...

by **aion7** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:04 am UTC

Freiberg wrote:They are the same people from http://xkcd.com/441/, right?

So, this is their second child...

by **Freiberg** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:06 am UTC

aion7 wrote:
Freiberg wrote:They are the same people from http://xkcd.com/441/, right?

So, this is their second child...

Who knows, maybe they did put it back together correctly...

EDIT: Why do I only have one post now?

by **Storm** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:08 am UTC

aion7 wrote:So, this is their second child...

Nope that's the first one genetically reassemble. Much like those bio-mechanical raptors.

run.

EDIT: I fail at spelling.

by **stone915** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:08 am UTC

Sirobin wrote:I'm definitely missing something in this comic...

All the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were a genetic experiment that went wrong. Randall's mentality is that if he makes the kid dependent on insulin from the start, he can withhold insulin (and therefore kill/disable the child) if the baby ever turns into a velociraptor and tries to kill him.

EDIT: I realized "evil velociraptor" was redundant.

by **GbLiNg420** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:09 am UTC

Jolly good show, sir, though I must warn thee; alcohol should not be distributed to the younger elements of our society, what what!

I say, old bean: are you aware of a certain amount of text that appears spontaneously as you pass your crosshairs over the artwork itself?

This is the last time I do this. Next time, GbLiNg420, we'll just replace your posts with an image of a rudely-shaped turnip. It generally has more interesting content, and doesn't burn your retinas, unlike your crass choice of font colour.

~~Felstaff

by **phlip** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:10 am UTC

Sirobin wrote:I'm definitely missing something in this comic...

Wikipedia wrote:The 1993 film Jurassic Park, which is based on the 1990 Michael Crichton novel Jurassic Park, features dinosaurs that were genetically altered so they could not produce lysine. This was supposed to prevent the cloned dinosaurs from leaving the park, forcing them to depend on lysine supplements provided by the park's veterinary staff.

by **vodka.cobra** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:11 am UTC

It makes perfect logical sense! Its the ethics that comes back to bite you on the ass for doing that.

by **bbctol** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:12 am UTC

Argh. The first thing I thought of when reading this comic was "Wait, he just used 'unless' wrong..."
Then i realized I was misunderstanding it, and resolved to never question the Great One again.

by **aion7** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:14 am UTC

GbLiNg420 wrote:das funn but u no it mad wack tho cuz achohol aint for babies

yall no dat u can read otha shiz if u keep yo mouse ove da comic??????[/color]

This guy is a genious. I'm super cereal.

by **Freiberg** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:14 am UTC

phlip wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:The 1993 film Jurassic Park, which is based on the 1990 Michael Crichton novel Jurassic Park, features dinosaurs that were genetically altered so they could not produce lysine. This was supposed to prevent the cloned dinosaurs from leaving the park, forcing them to depend on lysine supplements provided by the park's veterinary staff.

OOOOOOHHHH! Now I get it! I did not remember the thing about being dependent on lysine and stuff, so thank you!

EDIT: Yay! I have posts again!

by **Affableprechaun** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:20 am UTC

GbLiNg420 wrote:das funn but u no it mad wack tho cuz achohol aint for babies

yall no dat u can read otha shiz if u keep yo mouse ove da comic??????[/color]

This is some sort of witty commentary on the state of internet posters... right? Please... say right. For the sake of my faith in humanity.

Ah, who am I kidding. I lost faith a long, long time ago.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the comic made me smile. Insane parental controls are a touch amusing for their absurdity, I mean, this isn't worse than some things people really do. And Randall's constant Jurassic Park references are what they are. I still enjoy them, personally.

by **GodShapedBullet** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:20 am UTC

Also, some of the baby's DNA has been replaced with frog DNA.

by **meat.paste** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:21 am UTC

As the owner of two kids, I would remind everyone that there are plethora of psychological experiments you can do, too. (With two kids, you have a control

)

I Bwa-ha-ha'ed out loud with this one.

by **StClair** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:23 am UTC

Real parents don't need to install chemical kill switches in their offspring. They just threaten to do it the old-fashioned way.

by **aion7** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:28 am UTC

Or they could say they did, and administer a placebo to the child.

by **Asday** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:30 am UTC

GbLiNg420 wrote:das funn but u no it mad wack tho cuz achohol aint for babies

yall no dat u can read otha shiz if u keep yo mouse ove da comic??????[/color]

You make me want to stab my cat in the eyes.

I hate trolls.

I'm aware of the irony, I'm a terrible troll myself.

by **TheHand** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:31 am UTC

An experiment?

I thought that's just what we did to kids as a matter of course!

by **'; DROP DATABASE;--** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:48 am UTC

That's terrible. In a good way.

GbLiNg420 wrote:das funn but u no it mad wack tho cuz achohol aint for babies

yall no dat u can read otha shiz if u keep yo mouse ove da comic??????[/color]

This is a joke right? Because I was burned by cheese.

by **sje46** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:48 am UTC

Affableprechaun wrote:
GbLiNg420 wrote:das funn but u no it mad wack tho cuz achohol aint for babies

yall no dat u can read otha shiz if u keep yo mouse ove da comic??????[/color]

This is some sort of witty commentary on the state of internet posters... right? Please... say right. For the sake of my faith in humanity.

Ah, who am I kidding. I lost faith a long, long time ago.

GbLiNg420, other thread wrote:Greetings. [This comic] is exceptionally funny, as it is alluding to the claims Apple made to their MacBook Air product.

I took some artistic licence with editing people's posts
~Felstaff

by **ELProphet** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:56 am UTC

I would also add that the Dominion did this with the Jem'Hadar, to varying degrees of success. The most dramatic example of the success of the genetic engineering was an infant growing to a full adult in less than a week (don't ask where the extra body mass came from...). Victory is life!

by **Sunsnail** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:06 am UTC

This reminds me more of the lingering poison used in Dune

by **phillipsjk** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:07 am UTC

I had my jaw open with a shocked look on my face when I read the comic.

I think I was mildly offended! Then I remembered it was just a comic.....

But, it did remind me about recent a recent new story where parents are being advised to clean babies' mouths to keep them free of cavity (and other disease) causing plaque. I wonder if that is what the comic is in response to?

To determine the initial age of skeletons, I heard one of the things they look for is signs of cavities or dental work. Cavities don't happen without access to sugar.

Website · by **Nasaniaru** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:08 am UTC

phlip wrote:
Sirobin wrote:I'm definitely missing something in this comic...

Wikipedia wrote:The 1993 film Jurassic Park, which is based on the 1990 Michael Crichton novel Jurassic Park, features dinosaurs that were genetically altered so they could not produce lysine. This was supposed to prevent the cloned dinosaurs from leaving the park, forcing them to depend on lysine supplements provided by the park's veterinary staff.

Took me a while but I got it and if not for the fact that its immoral, I actually like this approach to paranting as well.

by **Eternal Density** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:09 am UTC

As an eldest child, I feel like an experiment myself. Ongoing even now.
And I turn 23 tomorrow. Hmm.

by **Osha** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:20 am UTC

Those fools!
Nature will find a way.

by **videogamesizzle** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:01 am UTC

clever girl...

by **illxkcdthat** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:03 am UTC

no comprende la comica de "contigency"

i es no comica !

por la manana... son las 2 am

\and now is the time wen i ask myself why did i write that in spanish...
the sad part is I HAVE NO IDEA/

Plus i probably screwed it up horible...

by **Bulvox** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:05 am UTC

...and then the sporks get them.

by **Foss** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:11 am UTC

Osha wrote:Those fools!
Nature will find a way.

Registered on the forum just now, only to write that, and you beat me to it. Figures... :wink:

by **lardy** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:31 am UTC

Of course, this is entirely inaccurate. You can't get insulin-dependent diabetes from too much sugar

by **linguistic** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:45 am UTC

Some xkcd comics I simply cannot ever show my girlfriend.

This is one such comic.

by **Afakaz** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:49 am UTC

phlip wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:The 1993 film Jurassic Park, which is based on the 1990 Michael Crichton novel Jurassic Park, features dinosaurs that were genetically altered so they could not produce lysine. This was supposed to prevent the cloned dinosaurs from leaving the park, forcing them to depend on lysine supplements provided by the park's veterinary staff.

That doesn't even make sense, lysine is an essential amino acid so it's not synthesized by living creatures... They get it from their food, so unless they also genetically engineered all of the foliage (which I wouldn't put past them, mind), lysine supplements wouldn't be required; more so than that, it doesn't take a genetic alteration to leave a(n) (vertebrate) animal incapable of producing it. Unless the dinosaurs were weird and produced it naturally, but that makes even LESS scientific sense.

Dammit Crichton, why do you have to be so scientifically inaccurate? Robert Sawyer kicks your ass

by **FarmerHE** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:07 am UTC

So this finally made me register an user here... only used the page for 1½ year now

Reading this i just got the idea "Wow this is what im going to do" have already planned to learn my kid to jump up and shout "Halt Bitte" (German for stop please) when they dont wont to recive anymore food/drink (and no im not german). seeems to be the perfect start

only problem might be to find a woman that agrees and a country that dosent remove the child

Sincerly
HE

by **baddeathbob** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:11 am UTC

lardy wrote:Of course, this is entirely inaccurate. You can't get insulin-dependent diabetes from too much sugar

Actually, you can't induce diabetes of ANY kind from too much sugar. Type 1 is genetic, and Type 2 (or 'onset diabetes') is still not understood well (although it appears to be linked to obesity in later life). Type 1 is treated with insulin, but Type 2 often requires insulin, too.

Of course, this is nit-picking. The joke rises from the idea that children are as dangerous as velociraptors, and we need a failsafe way to disable them. Obviously true.

http://xkcd.com/531/

by **Kookaburra** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:14 am UTC

TYPE II DIABETES DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

/Morbo

*ahem*, so sorry, don't know what came over me there. Anyways, excusable confusion about Diabetes Mellitus aside, this was an amusing strip.

Who is online