Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

211 comments

FSM (5, Funny)

Alaren (682568) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643471)

Check those noodly appendages... intelligent design indeed!

Re:FSM (5, Funny)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643843)

I'll believe ID when they find a fossilized watch.

Re:FSM (3, Funny)

illeism (953119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643947)

I'll believe in fossilized watches once somebody proves intelligence...

Re:FSM (5, Funny)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643983)

Re:FSM (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644213)

I wonder what Dawkins will say about this. It's undeniable!

Re:FSM (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644227)

Especially if it's a DIGITAL watch that has subsequently gone extinct.

Re:FSM (3, Informative)

jemtallon (1125407) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644001)

Check those noodly appendages... intelligent design indeed!

Just further proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's [flyingspag...onster.com] great tentacle guides us all across the saucy plate of life

Re:FSM (2, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644215)

No, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is in outer space [newscientist.com] . There's a Hubble picture of it at the supplied link.

In the Image of $DEITY Created $DEITY_PRONOUN It (3, Funny)

Alaren (682568) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644401)

But these little guys were clearly created in the FSM's image. Compare Genesis 1:27 [biblegateway.com]

who says ..... (2, Interesting)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645863)

i'm off topic on this one, but I never did understand why the assumption was always made that got created creatures the way they exist today. When the Bible says man who says they were refering to the first bi-ped. Who isn't to say the Bible wasn't refering to the final iteration of homosapain. Just food for thought here not trying to start a new religion.

Re:FSM (1)

dogdick (1290032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645613)

That's funny, it looks like a fossilized butthole to me.

Re:FSM (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646047)

Made in His image!

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Smelly Jeffrey (583520) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643485)

first octopussy post

Re:fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645095)

Even if I'm a straight man, I'd run away like hell if I ever saw a woman with eight vaginas.

Re:fp (0, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645447)

I have eight vaginas, you insensitive clod!

(And eight penises on the other side. But shhhhh, do not tell him. He better has eight orifices. Huar, huar, huar,... *drool*...)

Game? (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643543)

I thought Spore was a game?

Looks exactly like a wacky wall walker (1)

jeffrlamb (1400809) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643555)

Next up. Scientists discover Slinky like organism as missing link between Apes and Man.

Eight-armed creature (5, Insightful)

MisterSquirrel (1023517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643565)

Eight-armed, in the sense that a starfish is five-armed. Not quite as sci-fi weird as the headline might sound.

Re:Eight-armed creature (1)

KovaaK (1347019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644271)

Erm... did many people interpret it as such? When I first read it, I definitely didn't imagine something as intricate as some crazy sci-fi creation.

Re:Eight-armed creature (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644453)

1) Don't ever write "Erm..."

2) This is Slashdot. Of course many of us read it that way. Maybe you don't belong here?

Re:Eight-armed creature (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645021)

Erm... did many people interpret it as such?

I did. It's because of the "preceded dinosaurs" which made me think it was eight-armed vertebrates, for about two seconds. There's no reason to say "preceded dinosaurs" when it was significantly before dinosaurs and had nothing to do with them. You could say they preceded humans. It's just silly and confusing. It turns out these fossils are twice as old as dinos.

A better word would be "predate" which doesn't imply a close correlation in time.

Re:Eight-armed creature (4, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645133)

This animal is more like a hydra with multiple tentacles but extremely small and simplistic in design.

BTW there were LOTS of creatures that came before the dinosaurs.

There were the Cambrian creatures, followed by the Synapsids that were huge reptile-like creatures that dominated the planet until they were eventually replaced the dinosaurs. The Synapsids then evolved into mammals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid [wikipedia.org] For more info see the BBC's "Before the Dinosaurs"

Re:Eight-armed creature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644815)

First thought was a starfish eh?

O-C-T-O-P-U-S

Kraken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25643599)

They became Krakens!

Or two four-armed creatures. (0, Offtopic)

erroneous (158367) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643601)

I am not a scientist!

The summary is... (2, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643631)

Ladies and gentlemen, the plot to next year's summer movie flop.

Re:The summary is... (2, Funny)

baKanale (830108) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644849)

Or the next SciFi Channel Original "Movie"...

Re:The summary is... (3, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644877)

"I've had it with these mother fucking octopuses on this mother fucking plane!"

Re:The summary is... (0)

savorymedia (938523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645427)

"I've had it with these mother fucking octopi on this mother fucking plane!"

Fix'd. ;)

Re:The summary is... (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645587)

"I've had it with these mother fucking octopodes on this mother fucking plane!"

Fix'd. ;)

Fixed your fix for ya.

Octospiders (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643665)

Sounds similar to the octospiders featured in the Rama sequels. Okay, not really, I just felt like throwing out references to pop science fiction.

Re:Octospiders (4, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644037)

Sounds similar to the octospiders featured in the Rama sequels.

Oh god. I've been trying to forget those for over ten years now, and now you've brought all the horror back. In case anyone doesn't know, Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama [amazon.com] is a science fiction classic that only gets better with age. The sequels made in collaboration with Gentry Lee, however, have no touch of Clarke's genius. It's suggested that Gentry Lee penned them all by himself, and his interests were peculiar indeed. The third volume of the series has some of the most ridiculous sex ever found in science fiction, a genre already infamous for bad erotic scenes. Then, in the fourth volume, Lee reveals that the mysterious aliens whose starship humans had boarded were, in fact, angels serving the Christian God. Though why an omnipotent deity works through robots and subjects races to agonizingly slow slower-than-light travel is never explained.

Re:Octospiders (5, Funny)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644261)

what does God need with a starship?

Re:Octospiders (1)

innerweb (721995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644981)

You owe me a new computer keyboard. I just snorted soda all over it. Funniest damn reply I have read in ages!

InnerWeb

Re:Octospiders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645349)

Cruise control.

Re:Octospiders (3, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644641)

For an instant I was upset that you spoiled it. That feeling was immediately washed away by gratitude.

Thank you for sparing me from reading this.

-Peter

Re:Octospiders (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645169)

8 legged spiders? Are you mad?!!!

Re:Octospiders (1)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645595)

Sounds similar to the octospiders featured in the Rama sequels.

Radial symmetry, amoeboid, found as fossils ... I'm more reminded of H. P. Lovecraft's At The Mountains of Madness. Bad news for all albino, cave-dwelling penguins.

four accidental or metabolically efficient? (3, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643671)

Maybe four limbs gives you more bang for the buck in terms of the energy of development and survival locomotion. However insects and relatives have been more creative with all even numbers - 2, 4, 6, 8 and dozens.

computer evolution experiments (4, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643825)

I recall people studying the evolution of locomotion by allowing any kind of movement- walking, tumbling, slithering, wheels, etc. Computer programs "evolve" trying random mutations and look at resulting locomotive efficiency. Some clever, unexpected solutions result which you dont see in nature. I forget the reference, but may be associated with the Sante Fe Artificial Life Institute, etc.

Re:computer evolution experiments (5, Informative)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644819)

Here they are. He has some pretty cool videos showing the different types of locomotion that resulted. I love the one that grows really tall and falls over; it certainly achieved some fast movement over a short distance - but a bit of an evolutionary dead end. :)
http://www.karlsims.com/evolved-virtual-creatures.html [karlsims.com]

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (3, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643877)

I have always wondered where we got our 5-fold symmetry from. Our core body sprouts 5 elements (head, 2 arms and 2 legs), and the arms and legs at least sprout 5 fingers and toes.

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (2, Interesting)

lartful_dodger (821976) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644123)

The basic mammalian model, I always thought, was a 6-element system - most mammals have a tail, even some humans are born with one, albeit vestigial.

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (2)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645241)

I'll thank you to leave my family out of this discussion.

Good day, Sir!

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644739)

Most people call it bilateral symmetry (i.e., side-to-side).

My hand has some symmetry with my foot, but my head has quite a bit less.

The inner-middle-outer (endo-meso-ecto) tissue groupings also seem more logical than grouping the stuff that sticks out of the torso.

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (4, Informative)

Bowling Moses (591924) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644863)

We don't have 5-fold symmetry. We're bilaterally symmetric [wikipedia.org] ; we have a top, bottom, left, and right. A starfish has a top and bottom, but no left or right. For what it's worth, not even a five-armed starfish has exactly 5-fold symmetry. They are considered radially symmetric, but are thought to have evolved from bilaterally symmetric organisms and have some structures that show this.

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645101)

Fortunately for some of us, we have that sixth element that hangs down between our knees. Works great for balance, like a steadycam. :)

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (1)

lartful_dodger (821976) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644003)

I'm at a loss to think of any two-limbed complex organisms.
Purely in terms of locomotion on land, though, bipedal is reputedly more energy efficient than quadripedal movement.

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (5, Funny)

Paaskonijn (1220996) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644615)

I'm at a loss to think of any two-limbed complex organisms.

Pirates!

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644937)

I download music and have more than 2 limbs?? I'm confused.

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (3, Funny)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645775)

These two pirates are talking in a bar, and the tail of the story goes...

"... and that thar seagull splotted in me eye, and I was a-fergettin' that I'd a-just gotten me hook... and that's how I got me eyepatch! Yarrrr!"

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (1)

skiingyac (262641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644853)

fish?

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (1)

lartful_dodger (821976) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645151)

No, fish tend to have a couple of sets of bilaterally symmetrical fins, the pectoral and the ventral or pelvic.

Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? (1)

skiingyac (262641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645517)

yeah but only the pectoral fins really move (the others are mostly just raised/lowered). I don't suppose you count your ears, hair, and uh... other appendages as limbs.

Octopus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25643679)

So this thing sounds a lot like a octopus.

Re:Octopus? (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643725)

Yeah, if an octopus lacked internal organs and had a jelly like outer skin.

Re:Octopus? (2, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643773)


They should call it Octavius Palinus

Re:Octopus? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644035)

I'm amazed you were able to gleam that all from the summary!

Re:Octopus? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644105)

Wow, you can tell /. is really going downhere when the possibility that someone actually read TFA doesn't even cross people's minds.

Apologies to Douglas Adams (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643727)

So I would take it that these creatures would have invented personal deoderant before the wheel?

Re:Apologies to Douglas Adams (2, Insightful)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644045)

According to The Guide, it was the Jatravartids who were "unique", and since The Guide predates Ediacaran period, it is more likely to be correct (unless life itself is guilty of being neither beautiful, nor true).

Plus, if these newly discovered creatures had 8 limbs, they'd be similar to Octopuses (or octopi/octopodes) who are not known to use deodorants (and instead use a foul smelling chemical to avert predators). Thus, since Octopuses are not known to invent deodorants it is less likely that Eoandromeda octobrachiata invented them either.

Hence, the guide wins and Jatravartids keep the trophy.

Re:Apologies to Douglas Adams (1)

jemtallon (1125407) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644113)

Hey, you sass that hoopy UnknowingFool, there's a frood who really knows where his towel is

I for one lament (4, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643741)

The passing of our 8 legged, sea dwelling, Gondwanalandish ancestral overlords

Cthulu!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25643749)

Awcjsadfjhcsdfhadhfaoesuhfeobncosadcu!!!!!

To kill two birds with one stone also applys here (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643753)

It will soon be discoverd that two quadrupeds can be killed with one stone.

Re:To kill two birds with one stone also applys he (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644459)

If the stone's big enough, you can kill far more than 2. *nodnod*

could it be... (4, Funny)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643757)

Cthulu--the ancient one!

Re:could it be... (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644277)

I, for one, welcome the old eight-arms overlord!

Re:could it be... (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644305)

Shelob maybe?

Re:could it be... (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644451)

I think you're missing some "h"s here and there.

Re:could it be... (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644679)

Cthulu--the ancient one!

Dagon it, I thought it was the other one!

Nah, not Cthulhu (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644867)

Sounds closer to these guys [wikipedia.org] to me.

Re:could it be... (1)

eh2o (471262) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645805)

Its the spaghetti-monster, duh!

Not quite what I imagined (1)

eagee (1308589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643879)

I was thinking more like a half fish half humanoid eight armed sea monster from an ancient and extinct civilization.

What's wrong with me? Have I really reached a point in my life where a subscription to national enquirer might be in order??

Re:Not quite what I imagined (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644109)

What's wrong with me? Have I really reached a point in my life where a subscription to national enquirer might be in order??

Bah don't read that bullcrap. If you want to read a reliable news source Weekly World News [weeklyworldnews.com] is where it's at.

Re:Not quite what I imagined (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644329)

The sad thing is that I read an article in my local "legitimate" newspaper that was not only a word for word reprint from the Weekly World News, but it was printed 6 months AFTER the Weekly World News.

Re:Not quite what I imagined (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645835)

Parent is right. The Enquirer is nothing but celebrity crap. But WWN covers important stuff like Bat-boy!

Cthulhu Fhtagn (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25643881)

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Re:Cthulhu Fhtagn (1)

tietokone-olmi (26595) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644393)

They weren't discovered beneath the antarctic ice, were they?

Re:Cthulhu Fhtagn (3, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644927)

How's the weather in North Wales today, Mrs Trellis?

Obligatory Aha! Moment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25643907)

Embrace....extend....extinguish...

THERE'S your prior art! :P ....ok, ok, back under the bridge I go....

Sounds like...... (3, Funny)

prestomation (583502) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643917)

.....someone played Spore a bit too much...

I knew it (3, Funny)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643933)

...they describe other early living things that looked like leaves, shells, stars and something almost akin to a peace symbol.

Damn hippie fossils!

Re:I knew it (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644705)

See what happens when you believe in peace? You go extinct.

"preceded dinosaurs" (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#25643957)

Given the time scales involved, that's kind of like saying "Alexander preceded Napoleon" -- I mean, it's true, but it leaves out a whole lot that happened in between.

Oh, never mind. The past is telescoped. There's old stuff (things that happened before my parents were born) older stuff (George Washington and other guys in funny clothes) very old stuff (King Arthur and Robin Hood) extremely old stuff (cavemen and dinosaurs) and, apparently, incredibly old stuff (before cavemen and dinosaurs -- who knew?) No point in asking people to maintain a sense of persepective.

ooOOOooohhh (0, Flamebait)

Dop (123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644019)

So... it's an eight armed starfish? Astounding.

Another view ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644061)

Perhaps back then female populations were much higher, therefore every male needed as many hands as he could get

Bilateral symmetry by pure chance (4, Interesting)

timholman (71886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644135)

To me, the most interesting aspect of these early, pre-Cambrian-Explosion fossils was that bilateral symmetry (which is the norm for practically all animal life today) was nothing special. You had lots of organisms that were radially symmetric or just plain asymmetric. Whatever mass extinction event wiped out the majority of the Ediacaran biota gave a foothold to the bilaterally symmetric ancestors of modern animal life, which then dominated the Cambrian Explosion. It is just a fluke of evolution that we are not radially symmetric or asymmetric. Shades of Niven & Pournelle's Moties!

Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645527)

It is just a fluke of evolution

Or, put another way, it was selected for naturally.

Why? Because radially symmetric creatures are FREAKY of course! Dad's freak when a girls' boyfriend just has two arms. Can you imagine him having MORE?

They were purple... (1)

just-a-stone (766843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644181)

... and stopped by a time machine toilet.

so it's like (2, Funny)

Weh (219305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644205)

cthulhu?

I wish McCain had won (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644209)

So we could torment the VP with news like this.

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! (1)

legomad (596194) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644343)

At the Mountains of Madness.

My favorite ancient marine creature is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644897)

the wonderful Hallucigenia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucigenia

Called because the discover thought he was seeing things!

big whoop (0, Troll)

flahwho (1243110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645005)

so they found a small octopus?

Reminds me of the Jatravartids (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645085)

I wonder whether they would have invented aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

Options... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645093)

Warning: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645233)

This was probably made by Italians. Be careful, America! Eternal vigilance!

Maybe it's just me... (1)

silentben (1119141) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646053)

When I enlarged the photo, the putty impression looked a lot like a nipple.

Maybe mammalian nipples originated from an ancient symbiosis with these creatures!

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...