"Ye" is more Irish, "Ya" is more like it.

Source: I am Scottish.

EDIT: Okay, In case anyone was wondering you can use "Ye" but it wouldn't be used in the sense that /u/erickgramajo used it, you would use "Ya"; but you would use "Ye" if you where saying "are you going to the shop?" ("ur ye gon tae the shoap?"), also us Scots say "bastard" like "bastart" we tend to pronounce the D with a T sound if it's at the end of the word. This shit is really complicated and to think some people believe there is such thing as a "british accent" is crazy!

[deleted]

Who yous callin bastard ya pair a basturts?!

Ye bashtarrrd

Ye think me is he? Gee

Ye wee basterd ye

Git tae fuck

wot ye be towkin abeet

Ye cunting cunt ftfy

/r/nocontext

Well how about Too Fiddy?

I said "No monter, that's my three fiddy!".

I think he weighs at least 3.5 pounds

I am, but only to 350

This is pretty much the plot to Lake Placid

How are you gonna transport a dinosaur to the island without anyone knowing?

Holy shit that website

Looks like the dino is pooping out the artists signature.

Why, I'm 25 years old, why do you ask?

Where the fuck you gonna hide that thing

Not sure about the rules but what happens if someone nicks it? Or do you reside on the tropical island too?

It would outlive you and you'd never claim your prize.

Let it grooow, let it grooooooow

And now we know what's up with the Lock Ness Monster.

Do you have access to a tropical island?

Not semiaquatic.

Also Prehistoric Wildlife isn't a reliable source of information (a lot of outdated/inaccurate stuff there)

Make sure you get it's wait in anti-matter

Haha I like my women like I like my dinosaurs - compact, heavy and low maintenance.

I'm also tempermental, like my armor cleaned weekly, enjoy solitude and have little care about personal property as well. This is going to work out really well.

fuck that prize. i would train me a motherfucking t-rex and ride that majestic creature into battle! it works with raptors, so what's the worst that could happen? shrugs in ascii

Hippo doesn't come with a prize.

prize = bites from hippo

Not with that attitude

But what if it did, but nobody has ever survived to claim it..

maybe it's a bad/good idea to promote that... Darwin award material there

Depends on how much you've had to drink.

u/FuckaHippo

The hippo is the prize. Nobody is going to rob a guy that keeps a fucking hippo.

No, but they do come with marbles.

Hippos do not come with a club for a tail either.

The prize is a pet hippo.

But hungry hungry hippo could be a prize

Huh, TIL: stay the fuck away from Africa.

Incorrect. Hippos have been observed tearing open the stomachs of dead hippos to eat the semi-digested grass inside, but they aren't meat eaters as such.

Source: qualified FGASA Field Guide

source me on those claims tweenly?

And further more there is no reason to suspect nodosaurs or other large herbivorous dinosaurs didn't indulge in scavenging or even minor predation

Can you cannibalise anything other than your own kind?

[deleted]

We are all hippos on this blessed day.

Almost all 'vegetarian' animals are.

No they're not. In dire situations, yes, but I don't think we can classify them based on exceptions.

Almost all omnivores are opportunistic carnivores.

But they don't kill people in order to eat them, so the point still stands.

Valid point.

Rebuttal?

I think many animals we normally consider herbivores will often resort to eating other animals if they get hungry enough.

Also I saw a deer ear eat a cicada once just because it could. Until then, I didn't know that bugs could scream.

But it can kill you for other reasons. If I'm dying, in the middle of being attacked, am I going to say "at least it's not going to eat me."

Hippos kill more people than any other large animal in Africa does.

Dogs are carnivores, (omnivores, actually), and not only are deaths from dogs incredibly rare considering how many of them are among us, but I've never ever heard of a dog caused death, (at least in the case of a pet) that was motivated by the dog being hungry and wanting to eat humans.

It'll just crush and trample you in stead.

Oh I beg to differ check out these opportunitistic bastards

I don't notice anyone do anything

Why doesn't this shit apply to humans?

I feel like it really depends on the conditions of the agreement; does the act of someone seeing the dino erase any chance of winnings, or does the challenge end there and then and you collect your winnings upon discovery?

Mystery solved: osteoderms like on crocodiles. Bony protrusion covered in skin.

Hey! Hey! Hey....hey..... I am an Archaeologist....Not a Paleontologist....I think I know what I am talking about when I say..... Archaeologists dont do dinosaurs.

[deleted]

This reminds me of the T-Rex giga-pet I had as a kid. Picky bastard was always in a bad mood and didn't want to play unless I fed it pizza. So I stuffed pizza after pizza into him and he got fatter and fatter until he died. Take THAT, t-rex!

Sew its asshole shut AND KEEP FEEDING IT AND FEEDING IT AND FEEDING IT!

Hey it's John Doe

Dinosaur has gained the trait Gluttonous.

/r/DyingToBeFat

I've been doing that for about 30 years now. Takes longer than you'd think.

So this dinosaur is American.

Informal Gluttony.

But first you must. Kill. MUSTANG!

Force-feed it metal balls.

se7en

Once it reaches a size where you can't hide him anymore, force feed it a ton of lead. Poor dino died of "natural" lead poisoning but weighs a lot. Where's my money now?

What does Dinosaur foie gras taste like?

My dinosaur just loved to eat lead...

Fill the head with lead

https://youtu.be/iRpyVEMnYTc

Oh my god, can you imagine how great dinosaur foie gras would be?!?!? Bring on the force feeding tubes, daddy wants a fatty liver pâté to pair with his crackers!

Wagyu beef

Kill it by force-feeding it concrete.

yeah, kill it as soon as possible. Who needs dinosaurs when you can have money

Stuff it full of lead for its last meal

Maximal reward

Or just sell the dino for more than they were going to give you. I don't know what a live dinosaur is worth but I think we can safely guess a lot more than a dead one.

Wait, we're paid in Reddit gold?

GET ME A DINO, STAT.

But think of the eclectic gardeners who would pay a premium for dino poop fertilizer. Now, with 100% less cow shit!
The hipster organic vegan people will murder for it.

Right. An investment that returns 50% in 3 years is much better than an investment that returns 200% in 40 years.

Edit: I'm dumb. Meant to say an investment that gains that much. So returns 150% or returns 300% respectively.

The question just says that you'll be awarded. It never says the award is anything of monetary value like cash. For all we know, tbe reward for a biggest dinosaur ever could just be a reluctant hand job.

If a dino is fully grown by age 20, no point waiting till 100. Kill it and claim the money.

You would want the dino that puts on weight the fastest. Probably still one of the larger herbavors.

I've got about 6 months to accomplish this...

Yeah and the title didn't say that this is only a 1-time deal. What if you just kept churning out moderately sized dinos? That way, they are easy to transport too.

Well you win at the end of the competition so you have to wait for all the dinosaurs to die to know who won.

That's 88 years of riding your dinosaur buddy to work, the grocery store, jury duty, first dates, and eventually into retirement. Every single day for 88 years, and not giving a single fuck about the contest because you're the guy who has a dinosaur buddy.

Nobody gonna weigh Gary when he's dead. He's my buddy.

Maybe you see no point in the long term dino yield, but if you take a step back and look at it in a less selfish way, you can just pass the money down to your family and set them up for a better future!

I mean, I would just ask for a argentinosaurus and then kill it immediately. Doesn't need to be fattened up when it's larger than any other Dino can get.

The meat to extra gold ratio starts to plummet as it grows up until you reach a point where the cost for the extra meat needed to make your dinosaur any bigger will exceed the value of the extra amount of gold you'll get from the extra weight.

I fed your mom massive metal balls.

Yes. Thank you for the suggestion :)

But how can I eat the dino if it has lead?

This one got me, its so damn smart and evil. Laughed out loud for some reason.

But then you wouldn't be able to eat that delicious dinosaur meat.

But if he feeds it steel he could resell the meat for more profit.

mercury then..

Lead is more expensive and cuts into the profit

so many happy ideas in this thread

Uranium I think would be an even better option.

Still heavy but I would bet you need way less to kill a dinosaur. I would think you would need a lot of lead to get something going.

Inject mercury.

tungsten will do the same

yeah but how would you eat it?

What? The goal was for it to weigh as much as possible at the moment of death. You can't just kill it and then stuff it with metals...

because fat and meat weigh less. less money, and it likely has a maximum growth size.

I thought you were joking but evidently not.

What? No it's not. We have tortoises that aren't that large living over 100 years and a horse lives about 25-30 years. There are jellyfish the size of a shoebox that are biologically immortal. Just the first examples I could come up with but I really don't see the correlation there at all.

Where'd you get that? It's being arrested.

Wait, do T-Rexes have feathers now? Did they get Raptored in the past 20 years?

That's why he said "put your hands behind your-" not "He's got a gun!!"

lol racism

DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY FEATHER-GENDER?

I am completely guessing but I'd think for most minor stuff they probably don't worry and for major stuff they might find a post or something idk

You got my curiosity so I googled and this came out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3gq19m/how_do_police_arrest_a_person_who_doesnt_have/

Holy fucking lord, thank you so much dude.

Initial Dinosaur

Me too, thanks.

I will assert dominance while it is a baby, like that Chris Pratt fellow.

This just sounds like an Onion article. A great one at that.

To shreds, you say.

rides away on giant ostrich

A week later there would be little for it to blend with.

Utahraptor was actually 23 feet long.

I was talking about a juvenile utahraptor.

^{but really, thanks I didn't know}

[deleted]

The story is that the one fossil ever found was so fragile that it turned to dust during transportation so the only existing evidence is a sketch made in the 1870s

They're very sensitive about their weight, actually.

You know things can be heavy and fragile at the same time right?

You should see its Tumblr.

It was alive before Latin was invented. Latin roots don't apply.

Must be Italian.

Fragile psyche maybe.

This man raises a good point. Although it'd still weigh a fuck ton even if it does die instantly

Not necessarily. The reason why dinosaurs achieved their great sizes wasn't because of increased oxygen in the atmosphere, it was actually because they had pneumatic bones, thus their bones were much lighter but still able to support muscles (which is the reason why birds have hollow bones today, and likely one of the adaptations that allowed them to evolve to fly).

Also, pretty much everything on Earth would be toxic to it. It is usually healthier for plants to be toxic, as they will be able to live their lives undisturbed. But animals still need to eat, so they evolve to digest those toxins. This results in a toxin-toxin immunity arms race. If any really old herbivore was introduced to the world, it would find that all the plants are way more toxic than they were when it lived.

Probably not the case - http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4963/20131119/dinosaurs-lived-in-a-low-oxygen-world-study-suggests.htm

It's estimated that oxygen levels in the atmosphere, 300 million years ago, were not much higher than 30%, and dropped to the fraction that it is now (20.95%) long before the dinosaurs went extinct. Even so, similar to how modern animals can adapt to the lack of oxygen in higher altitudes, dinosaurs would be able to adapt to the lack of oxygen at sea level.

As for its weight, it wouldn't be a problem. The reason dinosaurs got so big is because they had ~240 million years to do so. When the extinction event occurred, large dinosaurs died out due to the lack of food (the accepted theory is that a meteor impact killed most of the Earth's plants and trees, which meant the large herbivores like your sauropods and your trikes had nothing to eat. Because they had nothing to eat, they died out without being able to procreate. Which meant the large carnivores, like your T-Rexes, had nothing to eat. They would have lived a bit longer than the herbivores, feeding on the corpses, but after a while, the food source would have been completely spent). It had nothing to do with their weight.

Smaller dinosaurs and ancient mammals remained, since they didn't need as much food, in order to survive. Since then, animals have only had 65 million years to evolve further, and they've gotten as big as a blue whale in the ocean, and an elephant on land. Mammals might not be able to get as big as dinosaurs did, but without those 190 million more years worth of evolution, we'll never know.

This is a myth, oxygen levels aren't really all that different.

It starts as a baby and animals are able to adjust a good bit to oxygen levels. Insects size is oxygen dependent however because they have a passive breathing system.

[deleted]

Is there evidence that O2 levels were higher during the Mesozoic? The Carboniferous, yes, explaining the large insects and amphibians - which rely on oxygenation by diffusion. But the Mesozoic?

You are thinking of the Carboniferous period which had O2 concentrations around 60% higher than today. These guys lived in the late Jurassic period, nearly 150 million years later. We don't know for sure, but studies guess that atmospheric O2 was about 30% higher than today. That's a bit higher, but I would think it would be like breathing at a high altitude, possible but laborious.

Well, that means that none of the other dinosaurs would be able to either most likely.

Yes. Therefore he doesn't need to hide the thing for long.

Good point. All our Dino's may struggle.

We also need to ignore the fact that dinosaurs went extinct but one had just popped into existence.

Best not to overthink it

Yes, let's bring logic Into this question. There is always one. GTFO :/

Honestly i dont think that would matter considering the prompt says "at the end of its lifespan" which means if it dies weighing more than a a ton i am probably a rich bitch.

sorry if this has been mentioned, i can see all f the replies.

That sounds wrong but I do not know enough about chemical biology to dispute you so I will just bid you a good day.

Err...no. I think you're thinking of the carboniferous period hundreds of millions of years before the dinosaur era, where O2 levels were much higher. Oxygen levels at the time would be roughly comparable to today.

That's not true. The amount of oxygen varied wildly in the time of the dinosaurs. Sometimes it was far greater than the percentage in today's atmosphere, sometimes it was far less.

But it's safe to say that oxygen had nothing to do with the size of the dinosaurs.

IIRC, there was one fossil ever discovered, and it was destroyed during transportation

Is this a joke I'm missing?

What is that a picture of?

It is fairly easy to replant trees and does not take long for them to regrow. CO2, on the other hand, is a relatively more permanent change that requires far faster action. All of the drastic changes we are attempting to make simply slow or halt the already approaching-toxic levels of CO2, let alone lower it.

A more technical answer: trees are carbon-neutral. Planting trees only temporarily (and very slightly) reduces CO2 levels. When trees die and decompose, they release the CO2 back into the air. We need to be removing the source of the CO2 (such as burning fossil fuels, and production of HFCs).

That's terrifying.

My dad is an environmental engineer. He is super passionate about conservationism. It's funny to watch him sometimes when he gets worked up about global warming. His position is that compared to the rate at which we are depleting our oceans and forests, global warming is a secondary issue. I think part of it, is that he's been fighting for ocean conservation for the last 30 years and seen only small progress, and in the last 10 most of the research and effort has been redirected away from his passion project towards global warming research.

Wait a minute, could elevated CO2 levels in atmosphere also be from the planet's lack of ability to convert it back into O2

Like if we still lived like hunter gatherers but were still getting rid of the rainforest etc. would we be in the same predicament?

well, some are.

Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920.

http://www.fao.org/forestry/en/

What country is that?

That makes me sad. There were paper companies in my hometown forever, but what they did was sustainable. They would plant lots of scrub pines and use those for the paper, they wouldn't chop down any natural forests. Why can people do that?

[deleted]

My dad is an environmental engineer. He is super passionate about conservationism. It's funny to watch him sometimes when he gets worked up about global warming. His position is that compared to the rate at which we are depleting our oceans and forests, global warming is a secondary issue. I think part of it, is that he's been fighting for ocean conservation for the last 30 years and seen only small progress, and in the last 10 most of the research and effort has been redirected away from his passion project towards global warming research.

This is what I love about living in NY (my time divided between the city and a couple hours north). We have( (way) more forest than we did even just 100 years ago. The Adirondack forest alone is huge.

From the google:

"The Adirondack Park spans 6.1 million acres and is larger than the state of Massachusetts. In fact, several National Parks could fit inside the Blue Line (the line on a map that designates the outline of the park), including Glacier, Yosemite, the Great Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon."

I always thought that was wrong and trees just store, it doesn't necessarily create O2.

Most of it are replaced by palm oil so, yeah.

Not to mention the majority of the landscape are wet soil like marsh and swamp which contains a fuckton of carbon because lack of decomposition.

A lot of methane gas trapped underneath the soil. And when it get released, a small source of fire caused by nature or human can be devastating.

Also maybe sometime later Indonesia will relocate their capital to central borneo, because Jakarta will get fucked by raising tides.

Algae is way better at making o2 than trees are

Trees don't do much, ocean does most of the work.

That's actually a really inaccurate picture. No one can find the original source for the "40 million acres per year" statistic, yet it's constantly quoted like gospel. We're actually losing a lot less than that, plus the forest grows back as soon as farmers move onto the next plot of land to slash and burn.

I thought he meant by deforestation, people would find the creature

I dont know about other countries, but the US actually produces more trees than it cuts down.

Jungle and forests are carbon neutral, the ability to turn co2 into o2 comes mainly from plants that die without releasing their co2. The green lung of the earth is all our algae in the ocean, which falls to the ocean floor when it dies.

This is blatantly incorrect.

About some 80% of the oxygen comes from ocean algae.

Although as the first world societies have become urban there has been an increase in forests. http://coffeespoons.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/mediterraneanGeos.jpeg
Just to share an interesting factoid.

Trees won't solve the problem. Trees suck up carbon over a life of 100 or so years then die and rot giving off most of that carbon back into the atmosphere.
Think about where this extra carbon in our atmosphere is coming from. Fossil fuels. Where are they from and what made them. They are from underground and they are made over millions of years of plants falling into swamps and not decaying because being underwater aerobic bacteria couldn't eat them but instead being buried.
You want to take carbon out of the atmosphere you will literally need to take it out of the atmosphere or store it somehow that it won't decay.
Planting trees is only a bandaid.
Not to mention carbon isn't the only and not even the worst greenhouse gas.

Now that's what I call an environmentally friendly solution!

What's the cheat code?

Okay how are you going to get an egg to the Amazon then