http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=192 (http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=192)
(http://www.homeonthestrange.com/comics/2007/2007-04-09.png)
Okay, my peeps: which animal will win?
:D
It's perfectly obvious that it depends on the size of the bear and the size of the shark...
:D
me...
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on December 03, 2009, 12:50:42 PM
It's perfectly obvious that it depends on the size of the bear and the size of the shark...
:D
And what about the size of the tank? You mean that this does not have any influence?
:ROFL:
---
Well, if the tank is small enough to prevent movement for the shark it may give the advantage to the bear but I still have my doubts if there is an adult white shark in the tank.
And will the bear have a breathing device?
Given the fact that the bear cannot breathe under water, he would need to be trained to scuba dive, in order for the shark not to have a too high of an advantage and make this a more or less fair fight.
But the tank is half full, suggesting that the bear would be able to stand and probably have his paws above water.
I saw a documentary in which they showed how polar bears hunted belugas quite successfully, although in fairness the belugas had to swim toward the hole in the ice to breath and keep it open or perish so the advantage was complete for the bears.
----
You notice what we're doing? ;) :D
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on December 03, 2009, 08:22:07 PM
You notice what we're doing? ;) :D
There are four options of what we are doing right now:
A) having the dumbest argument ever
B) wasting time discussing a topic that is highly improbable to find a solution ever
C) killing time on a slow foggy, rainy, cold November afternoon
D) making fools of ourselves...
please chose what fits best
I'd choose C) but
a) it isn't foggy here
b) nor rainy
c) much less cold
:P ;D
You couldn't force them to fight. So it's silly.
As radio personality Paul Harvey often said: Page Two
http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=193 (http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=193)
(http://www.homeonthestrange.com/comics/2007/2007-04-11.png)
Carry on, my merry monastery-ites!
I'm loving the discussion, really... so good, I've nothing to add
Quote from: Griffin NoName on December 04, 2009, 12:53:48 AM
You couldn't force them to fight. So it's silly.
Note the area - silly isn't an excuse to stop in Games and Jokes. If they were hungry, they'd 'fight' as they are both top predators.
Was initially going to put my money on the polar bear, but a shark takes considerably more killing than a bear does. I think the bear would do a better job of 'fighting' if this were a fantasy Pokemon-style matchup, but the bear wouldn't be likely to get at any significant vital areas on the shark quickly. A grizzly might do better with those digging claws....
EDIT: did some wiki-wandering - I did
not know how bloody big full-grown male polar bears are - every example I've seen with humans nearby for comparison must have been young'uns or females.
Have you seen how huge a great white is? ;)
(then again polar bears also eat walruses which are also humongous in size)
The largest great whites are massive, but an average mature specimen doesn't ridiculously outclass a typical male polar bear - for the sake of the fight one could put a big male bear against a male great white on the smallish size, both at 1500 lbs. The shark would only probably have about a metre of length on the bear (3 m vs 4 m).
What struck me the most about the size of a big polar bear was the wiki statement that they are twice the size of a Siberian tiger. :o
(for the record, if I had to be around one of those three in the wild, I'd take the shark. We're not natural prey for them. Polar bears will eat your @$$ and I wouldn't take my chances with any big cat)
Okay, since I started it:
The bear has very thick fur, which would limit the shark's immediate ability to lethal injury. But, the shark has demonstrated capability to bite through steel.
However, the bear has a thick layer of blubber, which also would limit the immediate damage the shark can do with his initial bite.
Finally, the bear has the advantage of warm blood metabolism-- which means he can out-think the shark in a knife-fight battle-- which the tank would force.
The shark's chief method of attack, is a long run-up to the prey, and depends on surprise and momentum. In the close confines of the tank, the bear has the advantage of 4 legs and a mouth. The shark just has a mouth attack, and cannot swim away.
I think the close confines of the tank would favor the polar bear-- the shark doesn't have enough room to turn.
I think it would depend on the tank size. A great white may not be the ideal killer here. Don't underestimate the shallow water capacity of sharks. Humans (and other large mammals) have been attacked by sharks in knee-deep water.*
Personally I think the bear, however hungry, would try to get out of the tank the instance (s)he sees the shark. Apart from (normal) fish (e.g. salmon) bears do not hunt their prey
in the water but from the edge (sharks have been seen as grabbing prey
from the edge also though).
Polar bears attack walrusses, except in extreme circumstances, only when they (i.e. the walrus) are alone and from behind. In Russia a standard method of chasing polar bears away is imitating the sound of walrus teeth on gravel** because walrusses use that gesture for threats (and bears are cautious to avoid those tusks).
Belugas don't bite back. That may be anecdotal or misremembered but swimming bears have been attacked by orcas.
The bear has only one chance to do real damage to the shark quickly enough: going for the gills.
What's next? Army ants against killer bees or Japanese hornets (without the water tank obviously)?
*I am aware that the ratio of humans killed by sharks to sharks killed by humans is about 1:10
8**e.g. using a stick.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on December 03, 2009, 10:22:30 PM
I'd choose C) but
a) it isn't foggy here
b) nor rainy
c) much less cold
:P ;D
and it#s not November anymore either
I'm sometimes a little slower, I guess I am still living in November...
What would happen, if we would freeze the water? WWE on ice?
Oooops, I'm a little crossthreading here... :mrgreen:
Yeah, I figured we would never make it 15 pages without thread drift, here. ;)
Actually that is an interesting scenario, not necessarily a half full tank but a layer of ice thick enough for the bear to walk in, both the bear and the shark know the other is at the other side and both are hungry. I know great whites attack vertically their preferred prey (sea lions) but I'm not sure if they have broken ice while hunting like orcas do. Such case would possibly give the advantage to the shark unless the bear is able to keep is 'cool' and remain on the ice attacking with his paws (as they do with belugas).
A properly trained bear would do a salto mortale plus turn and land on the shark's back. First it would gnaw the dorsal fin off, then either go for the gills (double-pawed grip on both sides, aka bear-hug from behind) or trying to get to the other fins/flippers.
If he cannot do the turn after the salto, he could do a heavy bite at the beginning of the tail cutting the connection of brain and tail fin. A really mad bear (is rabies an illegal form of bear doping for a fight?) would bite the shark's nose off. Sharks really hate that.
But be careful, most sharks react to direct hits on the nose with flight, great whites do not.
But why a one-on-one fight? Eleven bears against eleven sharks would be more interesting (but whre to get the proper unbiased umpire?).
I think Mrs Thatcher would win.
Oh sorry, wrong discussion. Why does this one remind me of the Time Lords determining which species to put in the Death Zone?
How long would the bear have to immobilize the shark before it drowned?
Quote from: beagle on December 05, 2009, 10:30:25 AM
I think Mrs Thatcher would win.
As was stated above, great whites can bite through steel, so iron should not fare better :mrgreen:
But to my knowledge Mrs. Thatcher is a a (self-declared*) mummy, not a bear or shark. At least in the tank it could not be set on fire.
*she famously joked when she arrvied (unexpectedly) at a Tory conference that nobody should have been surprised since there were posters all over the town declaring "The Mummy Returns"
I was actually wondering if Mrs. Thatcher was the shark or the bear...
Quote from: Swatopluk on December 05, 2009, 10:02:50 AM
A properly trained bear would do a salto mortale plus turn and land on the shark's back.
But the shark would be properly trained too. Although nothing was mentioned about training and I am not sure it is allowed.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on December 05, 2009, 06:39:29 PM
Quote from: Swatopluk on December 05, 2009, 10:02:50 AM
A properly trained bear would do a salto mortale plus turn and land on the shark's back.
But the shark would be properly trained too. Although nothing was mentioned about training and I am not sure it is allowed.
Well, a proper shark, at the very least, would have attended law school...
The most dangerous sharks don't even need an associate degree, check any used car salesperson, or even better, a loan shark.
Unfortunately the land based sharks lack gill slits that make them identifiable. Persons with them are either atavists or Deep Ones.
Oh, come on. Everybody knows that it's the lesbian stripper ninja that wins.
How about the flying pirate monkeys then?
:P
;D
Lesbian stripper ninja bear with gene-spliced shark fangs!
Isn't a lesbian stripper ninja an oxymoron? I mean, a lesbian stripper is bound to be flashy and ninjas are all about stealth...
:o
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on December 13, 2009, 08:24:06 PM
Isn't a lesbian stripper ninja an oxymoron? I mean, a lesbian stripper is bound to be flashy and ninjas are all about stealth...
:o
Not if they are black lesbian stripper ninjas.
Reminds me of the old joke: What does a black person think when using a zebra crossing? See me, see me not, see me, see me not...