Desperate boffins battling to save a rare and endangered species of rhino are attempting to breed the animals in captivity by mating a brother and sister. "Harapan", 6, arrived at the Cincinnati Zoo earlier in the month to meet up with his sister, "Suci", 9, with a view to reproduction. The Cincinnati Zoo is apparently a world …
Warning: The phrase you searched for:- "RHINOCEROS INCEST" has been blocked by Binoogle under order of the UK government.
Government Health Warning: You may lose both your job and your family if you continue to search for these terms. We won't lock you up or anything, we'll just announce it publicly and you'll never be taken seriously again. Any attempt to explain what you were *actually* looking for will be ignored in favour of an excuse to make jokes about "feeling horny".
Thank you for your understanding.
Re: Dave says...
All despair, this man has seen the future!
But never-mind. Here's a non-horny rhinoceros joke you can view without having to declare yourself to your ISP:
Q: How do you stop a rhinoceros from charging?
A: Take away his credit card.
Re: Dave says...
Rhino shagging - never thought of that one?
Re: Dave says...
*Unless you happen to be an MP in which case we assume you must be doing 'research' so carry on and here are some other search terms we blocked ....
They should start cross-breeding with other species. Rhinopotamus anyone?
River nose? I thought that rivers had mouths?
Cross-breed them with squirrels. The offspring -attempting to climb trees- will keep us amused on YouTube for years. Well weeks anyway. Alright days; but someone, somewhere will start breeding them.
Roth and her colleagues engaged in their desperate rhino-breeding push after a world conference of Sumatran rhino experts last year, at which the attendees realised there were more of them present than there were Sumatran rhinos left in the world.
So it's a bit like the case of COBOL programmers then?
Overriding evolution since 1500 B.C.
Mankind has been domesticating and evolving plants and animals for a lot longer than that. That's why there can be 7 billion of us.
For example, you can read how we've genetically modified wheat over the millennia. Then laugh the next time you hear someone saying how they like to eat farmers' pure, natural wheat and how terrible GM wheat is.
I was too lazy to search for a suitable number and 1500 looked pretty.
Then laugh the next time you hear someone saying how they like to eat farmers' pure, natural wheat and how terrible GM wheat is.
There's a big difference between selective breeding and using gold atoms to inject bacteria DNA into a plant. Just saying.
Yes, one is slow, random and has unplanned consequences. The other is fast, highly specific, and has unplanned consequences.
Sorry just for clarification, are you comparing the evolution of wheat by deliberate and accidental breeding and selection to inserting genes to allow a tolerance to large quantities of herbicides and pesticides?
"Sorry just for clarification, are you comparing the evolution of wheat by deliberate and accidental breeding and selection to inserting genes to allow a tolerance to large quantities of herbicides and pesticides?"
I think he is and I think he is right. Both do the same thing but the inserting genes thing is quicker and more successful.
"the inserting genes thing is quicker and more successful."
That might be the case, but breeding plants " to allow a tolerance to large quantities of herbicides and pesticides" is particularly nasty because
a) it results in excessive use of herbicides and pesticides (ie poisons) on our food
b) the whole point of doing it this way is so that the same company selling the GM seeds can sell vast amounts herbicides and pesticides
If it's true that " inserting genes thing is quicker and more successful", then the proper way to do it would be to breed plants that are less susceptible to pests and more tolerant to weeds, meaning we can grow more food with less poison on them.
But of course that would give GM companies only 1 humungous revenue stream instead of 2 humungous revenue streams
Ok so taking some corn plants and selectively breeding them for kernel sweetness or size is comparable to engineering a corn plant (which can absorb formaldehyde naturally) to withstand large quantities of a herbicide which partially degrades to formaldehyde?
I am not anti gmo, i think gm papaya is a great example of gmo done sensibly. Not all gm applications are as wise. I would be ok with GM corn \ soy etc should it be independantly proven that the product is safe and just as nutritious and that the use of the herbicides \ pesticides and fertiliser has no impact on the surrounding ecosystem (soil, water supply and run off to the ocean). Right now the situation is not entirely clear. Lots of studies funded by people with vested interests on both sides. As for why I am not satisfied, what I hear from gmo companies is that their farmers are only using them chemicals in the approved manner 'as it says on the label'. Many of our local wells here are still contaminated from previous farmers who were just doing what it said on the label. I am not unswayable, but unfortunately the is a lack of credibility (to some extent from both sides) so I will err on the side of caution.
The fact companies are lobbying so hard to avoid having to label gm products does worry me. Whats to hide? I just want to be able to make an informed choice. Others can then be free to make their own choices either way.
Both do the same thing but the inserting genes thing is quicker and more successful.
Quicker, yes. More successful? That's questionable. If your goal is just to modify the plant, then yes, inserting genes is more successful.
If, however, your ultimate goal is to produce more crop, then no, genetic modification is not usually more successful. GMO crops actually produce significantly less than their organic counterparts usually, and the farmers incur higher cost along the way due to the need (not just ability) to use far more herbicide and pesticide.
There are exceptions, of course. Some GMO crops do outperform their organic counterparts, but the biggest ones (wheat, soybeans, and corn) don't. Not that we really need them to. We already produce more than enough food to feed the world one and a half times over if we could just get it to where it's needed and keep it out of the hands of corrupt governments and warlords.
Finally Cincinnati makes it to Britain's most highly esteemed tech rag, El Reg - only for the most non techy story yet... Bummer....
C'mon Reg, surely there's something ELSE you could have picked upon from here? We do have excellent three-ways (even four and five ways if your taste goes that far).
Smoking Friendly Airport
You can smoke in the Cincinnati airport! That's something else! I'm stuck in one right now where you can't smoke and was thinking about all the other airports where I could smoke if only I had booked my own flight. Yay Cincinnati!
Re: Smoking Friendly Airport
Only 'cause Cincinnati airport is actually in Kentucky and they've yet to ban smoking out of existence ala Ohio.
Confused the crap outa me when I first flew in there knowing I had to get to Cincinnati OH and they announced as we approached the runway "Welcome to CVG airport in Kentucky".
Even weirder is that, in order to get to the airport we have to first leave Ohio and drive into Indiana THEN drive into Kentucky.
"Finally Cincinnati makes it to Britain's most highly esteemed tech rag, El Reg - only for the most non techy story yet... Bummer...."
No, i think they're looking to make baby rhinos, hence the Brother n sister thing.
If they wanted Bummers they'd have two brothers surely.
RE. Re. Dave says
Great, expect El Reg to make it onto the "pr0n schittlist" blacklist shortly.
The really sucky thing is that a lot of perfectly innocent sites such as deviantart, etc could also get blocked because 0.01% of the images might be viewed as "extreme cartoon pr0n" or whatever the buzzword this week is.
Exception detected near line 3:
Object 'DeviantArt' cannot be of type 'innocent'
Artificial insemination isn't an option?
Re: Turkey baster
Rhino baster, Shirley?
"I am not willing to sit idle and watch the last of a species go extinct.”
She should probably chat to a few Paleontologists and then look up the meaning of the phrase "drop in the ocean".
Obviously, what about just harvesting a few cells and doing some DNA jiggery-pokery until a viable embryo or 10 is generated?
"DNA jiggery-pokery" I thought that's what they were doing?
Here is a question of the natural process. If a species/subspecies is determined to die out is it right that we force them to survive through incest or to let them die out? Over hunting and over fishing are obvious problems but then there are species like panda's who just want to die out. I dont know if this rhino is the same problem but it matters. There are various problems of species travelling to new countries and wiping out other species, but that is the natural process.
So when people go on about preserving species to keep them alive/keep them safe they are actively subverting the natural process.
I am not saying which is right or wrong but I am clearing up the misconception that it is natural to force each species/sub species to exist.
Is it more natural to drink your water from a tap or from a bottle ?
I get what you are saying, but is it unnatural to attempt to mitigate an effect we are having on the species? We are doing a fairly good job of hunting them out of existance for no better reason than some people like fancy chess pieces and are obsessed about the size of their tonkas.
There are sound arguments for keeping animal and plant species around. Monocropping in agriculture creates a huge potential for a new pest \ disease to come along and create a huge famine. Having a variety of species of common foods provides some insurance and also a potential gene pool to hopefully find a resistant species in.
Not to say you are wrong, many species have gone extinct, many not because of us as well. I'm not convinced that we should do nothing but it's a valid discussion. Should we save pacific bluefin tuna? Theres a decent economic argument for it. Morally? Should we attempt to reduce our impact on other species?
I put RHINOCEROS INCEST in google pics and got picture of the tartis