×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spore Creatures Now Outnumber Known Earth Species

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the does-not-count-the-hollow-earth-creatures dept.

PC Games (Games) 128

GBC writes "AFP is reporting that, as of a week ago, the number of creatures in the "Spore" database exceeded the number of known species on Earth. They are created using 'Creature Creator,' which is available in a free (with limited parts) or paid download at the Spore website. Will Wright seems extremely happy with the progress so far: 'We hit 100K in 22 hours and a million by the end of the first week. The numbers are just blowing us away.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

128 comments

What percentage are... (4, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#24216721)

...penis creatures [ctrlaltdel-online.com]?

Re:What percentage are... (5, Funny)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 5 years ago | (#24216745)

Dude, don't be a dick.

Re:What percentage are... (5, Funny)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 5 years ago | (#24216911)

Yeah, seriously, who wants to read CAD. That comic is awful (and the author is a bit of a dick too).

Re:What percentage are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24216939)

Way to be on-topic!

Re:What percentage are... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24217803)

Don't be angry, Buckley. Your art and comedic skills should improve...eventually.

Re:What percentage are... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24218013)

Hey now, just 'cos I think OP was OT doesn't mean you should start hurling insults. I'm NOT Buckley.

I can be funny when the situation demands.

Re:What percentage are... (3, Funny)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217735)

the author is a bit of a dick

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. The author's a cad.

Re:What percentage are... (1, Insightful)

gnarlyhotep (872433) | more than 5 years ago | (#24220829)

With the irony of him complaining about other people inappropriately showing penises...

Re:What percentage are... (2, Interesting)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217193)

Very few, especially as EA moderates those sorts of creatures now. They ask you to not upload such creatures and if you continue, your banned. Sure you can a new account and the bans aren't perminent, but the vast majority of creatures don't need moderation anyways. There are so many wonderful creatures, its a shame the penis creatures made so much noise. I've contributed ~130 [spore.com] creatures myself.

Bad link (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218173)

I do hope you realize that the link you made to "your" profile does nothing for any of us. I mean, did you even look at the URL to notice that there's nothing that uniquely identifies your account in it?

Re:Bad link (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218503)

Yes, I completly failed with that link. Furthermore, I forgot that only people with an account are able to view profiles anyway. Ah well.

Re:What percentage are... (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217213)

Not that many [spore.com]. Yes - sure, the ability to create something which will offend, will be attractive for some.. and griefers will take longer to get bored. But sooner or later, the novelty of creating giant animated penii will wear off.

Re:What percentage are... (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217421)

But sooner or later, the novelty of creating giant animated penii will wear off.

If that's true, how do you explain Second Life's continued existence?

Re:What percentage are... (5, Funny)

Pennidren (1211474) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217467)

But sooner or later, the novelty of creating giant animated penii will wear off.

Speak for yourself

8========D ~~

Re:What percentage are... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24221083)

That smile face has a really long nose!

Re:What percentage are... (1)

Blublu (647618) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217635)

giant animated penii

Pssst! It's penises! It's also octopuses and viruses! The word penis doesn't even end in "-us" for fuck's sake!

Re:What percentage are... (3, Funny)

Tragedy4u (690579) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217439)

I really don't want to think about Penis Creatures and the statement in the article "The numbers are just blowing us away."

Re:What percentage are... (3, Funny)

spooje (582773) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217583)

I'm going to make a planet of vagina creatures then use them to bilk the penis planets of all their wealth after a large divorce settlement.

Re:What percentage are... (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217657)

I'm going to make a planet of vagina creatures then use them to bilk the penis planets of all their wealth...

that's not milk you're drinking there

Re:What percentage are... (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217849)

It's not a penis creature, it's vermiform fauna. The fact that it shoots a viscous white goo when you pat its head is completely coincidental!

(having not played with the creature creator yet, I would be horrified to discover such a thing is possible)

Re:What percentage are... (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218365)

Actually you can only make them spurt... er, shoot... er... SPIT purple goo. Although you can make them do it on command, as often as you like.

Re:What percentage are... (2, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218605)

Although you can make them do it on command, as often as you like.

Ah, that must be where the novelty is for these guys.

How many per user? (1)

sky289hawk1 (459600) | more than 5 years ago | (#24216865)

How many creatures per user are created? They didn't seem to have a limit on how many creatures are created per user, so couldn't 5 people be creating thousands?

Re:How many per user? (4, Informative)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217299)

Each profile gives some statistics about this, so I grabbed the numbers off my profile:
# Total number of creatures uploaded: 1906743
# Total Users Total number of users: 675241
# Creatures Uploaded in last 24 hours Creatures uploaded in last 24 hours: 30567
# New Users in the Last 24 Hours New users in last 24 hours: 7853

1906743 / 675241 = ~3 creatures per person. I've uploaded 130 myself, but there are a lot of of 1-time-only-creature creators too. As far as I've seen, very few users are over more than 200 and even 100 only somewhat common.

Re:How many per user? (1)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217769)

Yeah, this is just like the hoopla over the American Idol people saying there were more votes for AI than for the last presidential election. However, since people voted multiple times (MANY multiple times), while it seems to imply that there is more interest in AI than politics, it is just a misleading statement that makes it look as if Americans only care about the next big singer (whether or not we are is beside the point, this is only about misleading #s due to multiples being allowed).

Re:How many per user? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24218295)

Wait, so you're saying one voter = one vote in politics? Heh.

Re:How many per user? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24219203)

I'm from chicago and I support the parents message.

Re:How many per user? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219889)

Yes, yes, realistically 1 voter = 0 votes.

Re:How many per user? (1)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 5 years ago | (#24221319)

No no no
As N approaches the actual voter, his respective vote appears to diminish to 0.

Now we have to ask if accepting a vote is even important in a popular election anymore, or are the reported figures just being generated with an abacus and a shaker table? (Hint for the imaginationally impaired, shake an abacus on a flat surface and then read it. It should always change to some degree)

No, I'm forgetting that these are the people who can't use an abacus in the first place.

I am /me and I approve this message

Re:In related news (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217033)

huh - it's interesting to see this - pudge does lots of it too but usually keeps it to his journal. not saying it's bad, just don't know that i've seen other editors actively advocating political positions in the front page threads.
 
will there be some sort of 'official' slashdot take on things or is it just more of a free for all? and if so, does the editor thing come into play at all - as far as moderation and what not, or are you guys operating under different rules than the rest of the participants? just curious.

Re:In related news (0, Offtopic)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217547)

Have you ever seen pictures of ANWR? I should say picture, without the s, because one picture says it all. Most of the 20million acres is just that, barren tundra. Drilling for oil would use maybe a few thousand acres at most. All you psycho environuts need to start putting things into perspective.

Re:In related news (1)

downix (84795) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218099)

Have you seen the millions of miles of untapped, yet leased land given to the oil companies already?

Re:In related news (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219379)

You mean the land which might or might not contain oil but they have no clue how much or how hard it will be to access, or what type of crude? Yes, yes I have. OTOH, they pretty much have everything about ANWR pinned down except for the exact amount.

Re:In related news (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219397)

Have you seen the millions of miles of untapped, yet leased land given to the oil companies already?

Other than leased land so far underwater that we lack the technology to drill, oil companies are currently pumping *everything* they can stick a drill into, even slow-moving interns! Oil is $140 a barrel, man - is there some non-greedy oil company you're imagining here?

What a retarded meme.

Re:In related news (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24221655)

It's currently at $135, down from $146 due to George Bush's cheerleading for offshore drilling and poor economic predictions.

Re:In related news (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218217)

I've seen pictures of Gabriel Anwar.......pretty hot (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000270/).....especially in certain scenes in Body Snatchers.

Layne

Re:In related news (1)

Woundweavr (37873) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218223)

Here is a long picture diary [jmg-galleries.com] of a trick to ANWR that prove you absolutely positively don't know what you're talking about. But then, I think that should be apparent given the name of Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

Drilling in ANWR would not yield significant benefits to the oil market until 2026 according to the Department of Energy [doe.gov].

It seems before you should tell people to get perspective, you should stop deluding yourself with homemade "facts".

Re:In related news (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219407)

Of course, that ignores both the existence of oil futures and the fact that if we had started drilling in '95 when this first came up we would be getting physical results by 2013.

Re:In related news (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219445)

I remember the whole "we won't get benefits for 10 years" arguments 10 years ago, man, and 20. Drill here. Drill now.

Re:In related news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24218281)

All you psycho environuts need to start putting things into perspective.

Name-calling generally isn't effective in convincing someone that their opinion may not be the most well-warranted. It also reflects badly on your character, and reinforces negative stereotypes about everyone who advocates your position, even further harming your agenda.

If you really want any of the "psycho environuts" to listen to reason, then you will need to come across as reasonable, and present your arguments (including plenty of supporting evidence) in a respectful and logically precise manner.

Re:In related news (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24218301)

Have you been to the Arctic? Tundra [wikipedia.org] is [gudzon.net] not [angelfire.com] barren [cornell.edu].

It is treeless, but thats a long way from being barren. Many areas are covered with flowers, moss, lichen, and are host to all sorts of birds, insects, mammals, etc. The huge caribou herds are the most obvious wildlife. Lush, no. Beautiful, yes. There's nothing quite like coming over a hill and seeing the entire side of a mountain covered with blooming purple flowers.

You're right that oil drilling will disturb only a tiny fraction of the area in the reserve, but the effect will be greater than you would think from that areal ratio because it would ordinarily consist of criss-crossing the area with a network of roads and pipelines. The total area won't be much but the impact from that would be, especially because tundra environments are quite fragile compared to many other settings. Even dragging the equipment across the surface necessary to do seismic studies (the early stages of exploration) will leave scars on the surface that will be visible for decades. I know, because I've seen plenty of examples in the Arctic that date from the 1960s and 1970s. The effects from melting permafrost are *really* difficult to control if anything is disturbed on the surface.

All of this means that while I think you are right that drilling could be done, it would have to be done carefully. Doing it the way it was done at Prudhoe Bay, which is an absolute MESS that wouldn't be tolerated down south, is not appropriate. Pointing this out -- that it isn't barren rock and dirt and it is extraordinarily fragile compared to most environments -- doesn't make people "environuts". It means they understand what the real situation is, and want an appropriate balance between the short-term need for oil and longer-term preservation of a mostly pristine environment in as intact a state as practical.

I'm all for doing it, but doing it to the VERY high standards that should be expected in a wildlife reserve. That means flycamps only during exploration (no roads), specialized exploration techniques to limit damage to the tundra surface, complete remediation of drilling sites, and if a pipeline is put in it has to be engineered to be easily pulled out and the conditions restored when the production is finally done a couple of decades from now (assuming they find anything -- there's no guarantee).

People who use this stuff also need to put things in perspective: just because they aren't tearing up *your* back yard looking for black gold doesn't absolve you from some responsibility to make sure they aren't tearing up your neighbor's back yard to satisfy your binge consumption of the stuff.

Re:In related news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24220221)

OK. Here's the one picture you requested:

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/anwr-forest-455-pictures.htm

That just doesn't seem as barren as you say.

Re:In related news (2, Insightful)

YukonTech (841015) | more than 5 years ago | (#24221119)

You seem to forget it does not only effect the places you drill, but you need to build roads, pipelines, accomodations for the workers, basically tear into every area of alaska that is still untouched. Just because some selfish wingnut like you needs to drive his SUV doesn't mean the human race should risk losing some of the only land on the planet that hasn't been raped by mankind. The Porcupine Caribou herd relies on the land in ANWAR as they migrate every year drilling in ANWAR will lead to the demise of the 120,000 caribou herd not to mention all the northern communities who rely on the herd for sources of food, clothing and materials. But hey what do you care about things like heritage, compassion, thousands of human lives, and houndreds of thousands of animal lives? as long as you can save some money filling your gas gussling vehicles, and spend your weekends cruising thats what's important right?

Worried (3, Funny)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#24216913)

Should it worry me that there is more interest in fake creatures then real ones these days? This is turning into Pokemon on Meth...

Re:Worried (1, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24216963)

Well I think the time for worrying about such things is long past. Make your peace.

Re:Worried (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217057)

You have it wrong. More of x does not mean people are more interested in it. There are far asteroids than planets in our solar system, but planets receive a lot more interest.

Re:Worried (1)

electricbern (1222632) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217155)

That's because genetic engineers haven't been able to create real life penile creatures. Wait until genetic science get up to speed.

dead children in darfur, not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24219065)

polar bears going extinct - $500000000

children dying of curable diseases in poor countries - $100,000,000

some random crap you made online, while sitting in your parents basement sucking away the trust fund on taco bell and orange crush margaritas - worth saving on
archive.org for all eternity, and having your own web page about it, multi-hosted, and putting an entry in wikipedia. --- priceless!

Re:dead children in darfur, not impressed (0, Troll)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219539)

AC ignoring the fact that polar bears aren't going extinct at all, nor the fact that scientists don't know whether changes to their will end up killing them or not(existence in non-climate controlled zoos tends to suggest otherwise but is no guarantee) as well as ignoring that the ban on DDT as a mosquito repellent(not the ban on using it to protect crops) has killed the most children in poor countries each year - Fucking hilarious.

Me too... (1, Insightful)

AllIGotWasThisNick (1309495) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217179)

My skins cells also outnumber known Earth species. Is that relevant to anything? I believe someone commented yesterday (when this was news) that obviously this only implies that the criteria for "creature" is less stringent than for "species".

Re:Me too... (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217815)

It reminds me of that old joke:

"I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant."
"Why do you want an elephant?"
"I don't, I just want the money."

It's a relevant size measurement. People know there are a lot of Earth species - this must mean there are a lot of Spore "creatures." The point is that people put (at least some) effort into creating these things, which means that it must be doing alright. If the average person spent a mere five hours on a creature (although I haven't used this due to system requirement, I imagine it would take more to create a breast/penis monster) that's over 83k hours spent on this in the first week alone, or the amount of time 2,083 employees spend at work. That's astounding anyway you look at it.

Re:Me too... (3, Insightful)

Clovis42 (1229086) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217959)

If the average person spent a mere five hours on a creature

It's more like .5 hours. I put my 12 year old brother in front of it for the first time and he made an impressive looking creature in about 30 minutes. It is an amazingly simple tool to use. If the other parts of Spore are as streamlined and elegant as the Creature Creator it'll be one of the most impressive games in years. I doubt that will be the case, though. There are some tutorials on the Spore website. You can watch a Maxis employee throw together a nice mantis in about 5 minutes.

Re:Me too... (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218051)

Oof, thanks. MEANT five minutes, not hours. The meager math following that inane statement uses five minutes.

Besides, the average human can't spend five hours on ANYTHING.

Re:Me too... (1)

AllIGotWasThisNick (1309495) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222247)

It's a relevant size measurement

So, this is the "Library of Congress" for biology:

Professor: There are more ants in that anthill than known species on Earth!

or just Spore?

Will Wright: We've got more creatures than known species on Earth!

I stand by my complaint about relevance. :D

Re:Me too... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24219079)

The number created for Spore also are created in a vacuum. They aren't all on the same planet competing for resources and space to live.

The creature creator would have been much cooler.. (1)

halsver (885120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217185)

... if it had a console where you can hack the creature's DNA! Or at least try altering the DNA to give it mutant powers!

Really it would be a fun exercise and it and it could teach what can go horribly, horribly wrong with just a little nudge to the DNA here and there. 8)

Re:The creature creator would have been much coole (2, Informative)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217545)

Really it would be a fun exercise and it and it could teach what can go horribly, horribly wrong with just a little nudge to the DNA here and there.

You obviously haven't seen the creatures that already have been created with this software. Some of them are the definition of "horribly wrong."

Re:The creature creator would have been much coole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24219625)

my creatures resemble this remark

Re:The creature creator would have been much coole (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219957)

That'd just not work, you'd end up either changing an intron or breaking some important protein blueprint, making the creature unable to live. It's like letting you fire specific neurons in your creature's brain, you'd just end up causing seizures.

Re:The creature creator would have been much coole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24220803)

I don't think you understand the scale of DNA... each creature would need gigabites of space, and you'd never find a set of changes that would result in "powers" by random guesses by an individual.

Sure, you could simplify the DNA... but then you'd pretty much just be giving someone a hex editor and a save file. And the result would be pretty much uniform failure to load the creature.

Underestimite of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24217203)

Actually, it's only the Eukaryotic species that number in the millions. There are more than 10^9 bacterial species. How much more, no one knows (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16357141).

DRM on Creature Creator? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24217335)

I've mostly been staying away from Spore because of the fairly restrictive DRM it's supposed to be shipping with. Anyone know if the creature creator tool also installs the DRM?

I just recently re-formatted and re-installed windows, and I'm trying not to bog it down again with crapware like DRM systems that drag down my system performance.

Personally, since I can't get the full game without DRM, I'm not sure I'm too interested in the CC even if it *doesn't* have the DRM, since it's not *much* use creating a creature but never playing the game.

Re:DRM on Creature Creator? (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218151)

From what I've read even the free creature editor comes with SecuROM, so yes, you should stay far away from it.

Re:DRM on Creature Creator? (1)

GrayNimic (1051532) | more than 5 years ago | (#24222101)

From what I've read even the free creature editor comes with SecuROM, so yes, you should stay far away from it.

Which is common now, apparently because the executables from "demo-esque" variants of games could often be editted (without too much difficulty) to run the full game, given the full game's data files. So if the demo doesn't have DRM, then they've just made their big DRM investment worth even less, by doing most of the hacker's/pirate's (depending on your POV) job for them already.

At least, that's the best explanation I've ever run across as to why freely distributable demos get DRM. I don't know how similar the CreatureCreator is to Spore, but it might be the same logic anyway.

Re:DRM on Creature Creator? (5, Funny)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219141)

I just recently re-formatted and re-installed windows, and I'm trying not to bog it down again with crapware like DRM systems that drag down my system performance.

Then why did you install Windows?

Re:DRM on Creature Creator? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219489)

There's no DRM built into WinXP or Win2003 (and probably none in Win2008). Of course, there's no sane reason to install Vista.

Re:DRM on Creature Creator? (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#24220215)

Not until you upgrade to WMP 10, or insert a CD or DVD which autoruns a DRM installer.

DRM (2, Informative)

pluther (647209) | more than 5 years ago | (#24220555)

Gah!
I did that several months ago. It hasn't allowed me to watch my purchased DVDs since. Apparently, it doesn't like my VGA connection to my monitor.

I had to go learn how to rip DVDs just so I could watch the video I legitimately purchased.

Ironically, WMP 10 has no problem playing the ripped content, or any DVDs that I burned myself.

Re:DRM on Creature Creator? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#24221059)

But even after installing WMP10 you can still watch your DVDs on a real player - the DRM is in WMP, not in the OS.

Tricky Geniuses at Maxis/EA (3, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217495)

Apparently, Will Wright and company weren't at all satisfied with the idea of people creating monstrous amounts of after-market content for their Sims games. Not only have they whet the appetites of all the people who enjoy the Creture Creator for the retail game, but they also get to sell Spore right out of the gate as having "millions of creatures available online." The only expense involved was building the software for creature creation, and they would have done that anyway. Brilliant!

Re:Tricky Geniuses at Maxis/EA (1)

sp332 (781207) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217639)

True, but don't discount the cost of building the software. It's over-budget, behind schedule, and from what I've seen so far, totally kicks ass!

Re:Tricky Geniuses at Maxis/EA (3, Interesting)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217895)

It's over-budget, behind schedule, and from what I've seen so far, totally kicks ass!

That's the way it should be. It's why Blizzard is one of the only group out there that makes a good product - Damn the release date! A better game is better for everyone in the long run. Really, that line should read:

They're putting every resource they have into making this the best, taking every day necessary to make it even more awesome, and from what I've seen so far, totally kicks ass!"

*insert joke about how DNF must be, ipso facto, the greatest game ever made*

The database is incomplete (2, Funny)

Spassoklabanias (1295839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24217615)

The original poster obviously missed the most extraordinary animal on the planet: the slashdotter. Without it, the world is obsolete. By the way, how would this creature look like? Any takers?

Re:The database is incomplete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24219421)

Unfortunately enough, the Creature Editor does not provide an option to have these creatures carry around their Mom's Basements.

Beware of the Spores (3, Funny)

knightf0x (218696) | more than 5 years ago | (#24218665)

"The Spores Dana, beware of the Spores, and the Invid. Beware of the Invid. They will come in search of the Spores."

How many Spore creatures are Duplicates? (2, Interesting)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#24219323)

I wonder if anyone has duplicated another user's creature without knowing about it....

Bill Joy was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24220717)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

See, this is what happens when computer get too smart.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...