Slashdot Mirror


Stanford Accelerator Uncovers Archimedes' Text

AI Playground points to a Newsday.com report which reads in part "A particle accelerator is being used to reveal the long-lost writings of the Greek mathematician Archimedes, work hidden for centuries after a Christian monk wrote over it in the Middle Ages. Highly focused X-rays produced at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center were used last week to begin deciphering the parts of the 174-page text that have not yet been revealed."

392 comments

  1. Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    we have it!

    "What is Six Times... NINE?"

  2. Being done by panxerox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is lots of this work going on now see here "A Library of Mud and Ashes" Great stuff will come from this.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:Being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the use of Particle Accelerators so commonplace that they are being used to read ancient documents now? I would think there would be more demanding research for them than this.

    2. Re:Being done by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, similar techniques to the X-Ray fluorescence are being used on a wide range of archaeological finds, from illegible scrolls found in Italy to manuscripts found in various rubbish tips from the dark ages and before.


      Actually, the idea seems to have started about 15-20 years ago, of using various attributes to read xsuch documents. A technique was developed in the UK - I believe it was called ESDA - which used magnetic fields and extremely fine iron dust to detect indentations left in paper when layers further up had been written on.


      The technique hit the news during the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad fiasco, when it was demonstrated, by use of this technique, that "confessions" had been altered after they had been signed by the supposed confessee. It led to a lot of cases being thrown out on appeal, and a subsequent inquiry as to what had happened.


      Other popular techniques include the use of various frequencies of light and/or UV, to reveal marks that wouldn't otherwise be visible, which is how some of the more "legible" parts of the palimpset of Archimedes were photographed prior to this.


      Chemical techniques exist, but archaeologists are wary of anything that can damage an ancient find, unless it is so far beyond salvage that preservation of the original would be impossible anyway. Even then, they don't like it and try to avoid it.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but will they be able to decypher my doctors prescriptions?

      -SJ53

    4. Re:Being done by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      archaeologists are wary of anything that can damage an ancient find

      The funny thing is, I use a synchrotron regularly to study protein crystals, and we're always freaked out about radiation damage to our proteins. All of our crystals are frozen in liquid nitrogen, and kept cool in a cryojet while collecting data. (At room temperature, crystals fry extremely fast.) I'm curious how they protected the document while doing this study. It wouldn't be hard to burn it, unless they're using extremely short exposure times or a very diffuse beam.

    5. Re:Being done by RWerp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose they use other wavelengths, longer ones (they're not trying to tell the position of each atom in their artefact, just the density variations -- I suppose). Longer wavelengths -- lower frequencies -- lower energy of the photons -- less damage.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    6. Re:Being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the blurb, they use X-Rays. So no, apparently they don't use low energy radiation.

    7. Re:Being done by kingofalaska · · Score: 1
      Chemical techniques exist, but archaeologists are wary of anything that can damage an ancient find, unless it is so far beyond salvage that preservation of the original would be impossible anyway. Even then, they don't like it and try to avoid it.

      I wonder at what point the potential benefits outweigh the potential alteration/damage? Who knows what would be revealed?

    8. Re:Being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is more than one wavelength in the X-ray band. choose the longest that still has the right penetrative properties.

    9. Re:Being done by eimerkopf · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not a protein crystallographer, but I do work at a synchrotron and do lots of x-ray absorption and diffraction experiments. I've never had a problem with x-ray damage to my samples (mostly inorganic solids). Susceptibility to radiation damage varies from material to material. From my understanding, protein crystals are particularly bad, presumably because they not respond well (in a chemical sense) to the large numbers of electrons generated after an x-ray absorption event. This basically causes impurities in the crystal (local changes in the structure factor) that degrade the diffraction measurement. Also, in your typical protein diffraction experiment, you irradiate a particular spot on the crystal for a very long time. I would guess that this is not so much an issue in this case, because (1) no one is really interested in the chemical structure of the parchment itself, and (2) a particular spot on the sample is exposed only for a very short time. Incidentally, there's a better write-up of this at Stanford: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/may25/a rchimedes-052505.html

    10. Re:Being done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Other popular techniques include the use of various frequencies of light and/or UV, to reveal marks that wouldn't otherwise be visible, which is how some of the more "legible" parts of the palimpset of Archimedes were photographed prior to this.

      Oo-oo, "the palimpset of Archimedes". Now aren't we hoity-toity, with "palimpset" this and "palimpset" that.

    11. Re:Being done by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      "Demanding" in what sense?

      Do you think reading long-inaccessible ancient documents by some of the intellectual forebears of our culture isn't a worthwhile use of the tech?

    12. Re:Being done by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      I wonder at what point the potential benefits outweigh the potential alteration/damage? Who knows what would be revealed?

      Patience. Why take some clear risk when perhaps some years down the road a less risky technique will be developed? We have only one copy, but we have plenty of time.

    13. Re:Being done by cocoamix · · Score: 1

      I work on an SEM with EDX and WDS capability, and sample damage is always a concern. Electrons and X-Rays are energy. Any time you concentrate energy on a non-conductive surface, you run the risk of damage.

      Fortunately, the damage area is usually only a few hundred or thousand square microns. Then again, we're not examining priceless artifacts.

      I would assume the people put in charge of this project are more than aware of the risks involved.

    14. Re:Being done by jd · · Score: 1

      My guess is that if a document is disintegrating faster than technology is improving to be able to read it, there ceases to be a time advantage. On the other hand, if you can even sort-of stabilize the condition of the material, then you're OK, because (as you say) something is going to be invented, sooner or later.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:Being done by jd · · Score: 1
      Actually, there's only going to be one frequency that works - that which the iron atom absorbs. Iron will simply ignore everything else. Likewise, everything else simply ignores that energy of X-Ray, so it won't be damaged.


      There are only two real risks - if there is sufficient iron concentration in one spot, you may get localized heating, which could cause damage. Also, if you start getting electrons spraying everywhere, there is an element of risk that you will cause a localized change in the chemical composition.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  3. May I Be the First ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    May I be the first (O.K., second) to run naked through the streets of Syracuse crying, "Eureka!".

    1. Re:May I Be the First ... by zoloto · · Score: 1

      Syracuse, NY
      Syracuse, UT
      or
      Syracuse, ITaly?

    2. Re:May I Be the First ... by kclittle · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm... a Trinakedthon?

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    3. Re:May I Be the First ... by ddimas · · Score: 1

      Ti eurekais xevrakote?

    4. Re:May I Be the First ... by jfern · · Score: 1

      In the first one, you'd die of the cold.
      In the second one, you'd probably get shot.
      So probably the third one.

    5. Re:May I Be the First ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To sovrakon mou?

    6. Re:May I Be the First ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is Ephebian for, "Throw me a towel!"

    7. Re:May I Be the First ... by ddimas · · Score: 1

      Para poly orea!

    8. Re:May I Be the First ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you wouldn't be even the second. Streaking was quite the thing in the mid 70's. And with Syracuse being a college town and all. Of course I don't know if any of them shouted 'Eureka!'. They may have shouted "Hoover!" or "Oreck!".

  4. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    The answer to your question, sir, is the little boy I have under my bed for BUGGERY.

    How are (Michael Jackson | the ancient Greeks) and McDonalds alike?

    They both put 30 year old slabs of meat in 10 year old buns.

  5. Preservation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wont such a strong beam potentially destroy the precious paper that had weather thousand years?

    1. Re:Preservation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      oh shit! we never thought of that possibility!!

      hey frank, STOP THE BEAM!!!!

    2. Re:Preservation by poor_boi · · Score: 1

      The last thing scientists are worried about are destroying these inestimably valuable relics from the past. It's shoot first, ask questions later, at Stanford!

    3. Re:Preservation by dustmite · · Score: 1

      I would think that the information in it is more valuable than the piece of paper itself, which is, well, just a piece of paper.

      I'm sure I would feel the same if my work had been dug up centuries from now, and everyone screamed "noooo!! protect the paper!" when an opportunity to read what I'd written came up. Do you think Archimedes would care about the paper itself more than its content?

  6. Reminds me of an X-Files episode... by Radio+Shack+Robot · · Score: 1

    ...with the Lone Gunmen.

    --

    Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
    1. Re:Reminds me of an X-Files episode... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you.

  7. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    urge someone to step up and STOP this blatant piracy of Archimedes valuable IP!!!

    1. Re:I for one by powerlord · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one urge someone to step up and STOP this blatant piracy of Archimedes valuable IP!!!


      Next thing you know someone will start trying to distribute the stuff on some website ...
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    2. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the math for everyone than this report today regarding a particle accelerator being used to reveal the long-lost writings. The unfortunate fact is this type of theft happens on a regular basis in historic circles all over the world," AMS executive director and publisher John Ewing said in a press release.

    3. Re:I for one by McCheese · · Score: 0

      I visited Stanford and found it to be a beautiful institution. The architecture is of high quality.

    4. Re:I for one by doxology · · Score: 1

      I'll be going there next year as an undergrad =D

      --
      sigfault. core dumped.
    5. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. If this isn't stopped RIGHT NOW, Archimedes will have no incentive to create more original works. He'll have to get a day job to pay the rent instead.

    6. Re:I for one by McCheese · · Score: 0

      Nice man. The name is worth the cost of going there by itself. You will enjoy your time.

    7. Re:I for one by Neronix · · Score: 1

      zOMG! TORRANT PLS!!11!oen

    8. Re:I for one by Joe+Jarvis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Somewhere, a communications major in a dream job is writing:

      "There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of history for everyone than this report today regarding SLAC providing users with illegal copies of Archimedes' ancient work. The unfortunate fact is this type of theft happens on a regular basis using particle accelerators all over the world."
    9. Re:I for one by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > Next thing you know someone will start trying to distribute the stuff on some website ...

      Nah, everyone knows that pirates use bittorrent.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    10. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll just follow the standard pattern and wait until others have invested enough development into the ideas and then sue based on the IP.

      As it is written "the Greek shall inherit the earth"

  8. Damn those Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A particle accelerator is being used to reveal the long-lost writings of the Greek mathematician Archimedes, work hidden for centuries after a Christian monk wrote over it in the Middle Ages.

    Proving yet again that Christians can't stand it when someone proves there's more to the world than God.

    I kid though :)

    1. Re:Damn those Christians by Ayaress · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much as I'd love to make one of the jokes forming up in my mind, I have to say this may have been something less than intentionally stifling percieved heresy. The paper was erased and reused to make a prayer book. The usual way of treating heresy was to burn it. The fact that it was erased and reused suggests it wasn't considered heresy, which in turn suggests to me one of a few likely scenarios:

      A. The monk who erased it didn't know there was any significance in the paper to make it worth preservation.
      B. The monk thought there were other copies in existence (and there well could have been at the time, only to be lost later), and thus the one he had was expendable
      C. The monk just wasn't that bright.

    2. Re:Damn those Christians by melikamp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      D. Church wanted paper and that was the cheapest way to get it.

    3. Re:Damn those Christians by ServeYourWorld · · Score: 1

      If I could I'd mod you up for being right.

    4. Re:Damn those Christians by bVork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's just a little more to the story than that. It was considered a virtuous act to cover over 'heathen' writings with Christian writings. More cynical /. readers will probably say that this is a nice way of justifying what the parent poster said.

      One of the major problems with the whole palimpsest system of, er, 'recycling' is the difference in binding. Most Classical-era works were in scroll form, and by the time the monks started copying over them, the book was the dominant form of binding. This meant that scrolls were often cut up and rebound in books, almost always shuffled completely out of order.

    5. Re:Damn those Christians by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      Imagine how many times my hard drive has been erased and recycled to hold new information?

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    6. Re:Damn those Christians by DingerX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Virtuous act? My ass.

      There are plenty of twelfth-century scholars in the West and in the Greek East who read and appreciated ancient Greek and Latin texts; and the vast majority of these were churchmen. Their reaction to a 12th-century monk scraping off Archimedes and copying down a prayer-book would be much like ours, as in "Hey Rube, WTF are you doing?" But well, not everybody is educated to the same degree, and a poor monastery may indeed find the parchment more valuable than the indeciphrable gibberish written on it.


      For those of you who can't grasp the concept, it's like when ma threw out all the old baseball cards; you fought it at the time, and twenty years later you know the retail value of what you lost. Ignorance spans all periods; but in spite of what crap 19th-century progressivism may make you think about the middle ages, medieval people didn't hate and seek to destroy antique texts; quite the contrary, they liked them, and they found ancient science very useful. Remember this text was copied in the 10th century by a monk as well.

    7. Re:Damn those Christians by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      Contrary to a lot of the posts I've read so far, I'd have to say that if the monk knew what the book was he wouldn't have messed with it. My dad has just recently converted to catholicism, and he is very impressed by the shear volume of knowledge that the church posesses. They have their hands in many sciences like astrology and numerology, and they seem to value every bit of it they can get regardless of whether it is contrary to the religion. Maybe they weren't like that back in the days before the Rennaisance, but it would definitely explain why monks spent all their time recording books. In any case, I would think that the monk just needed paper and grabbed the nearest book. It just happened to be a math book [the traditions still burn strong today, I ruin my math books too!]. This book also survived the city it was in burning to the ground.. maybe because it was a prayer book by then =)

    8. Re:Damn those Christians by bVork · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that ALL Christians of the era believed it, but the basic perspective of the time was that any Christian text was by definition a greater work of art than a pagan text.

      The Church did indeed value Classical works, but individual monastaries were more concerned with works relating to their own order.

      Incidentally, your remark about gibberish is quite close to the truth - most monks and other clergymen could understand Latin, but Greek wasn't as widespread. This meant that Greek works (like the aforementioned Archimedes text) were literally gibberish, and whats the point of keeping something if you cannot understand it?

    9. Re:Damn those Christians by argent · · Score: 3, Funny

      you fought it at the time, and twenty years later you know the retail value of what you lost.

      Of course if most people's mums hadn't thrown out their baseball cards they wouldn't have been worth much.

    10. Re:Damn those Christians by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      In addition, I doubt that any of that was heretic... what the Christian did was to defend the scientific ideas that were commonly accepted at the beginning of the era and use them as a base of its theology. There is no part in the Bible against the theory of blood circulation, and, more arguably, against heliocentrism; it was just that pre-Christianims scientifics were mainly against it.

      The church just borrowed those theories to create its own "christian science" only that, due to the rigid social structure of the Middle Age, it was based more in accepting what your "bosses" did that in experimentation. That's the true reason of the actitude of the church against new discoveries, the discoveries themselves were not the trouble except that they pointed out that the church was wrong in these cases, and maybe could be wrong in others (the discoveries that did not oppose the stablished ideas were welcomed).

      That said, is difficult that the Church Archymedes heretical. His ideas were well known when the christians took power and, being practical ideas, they could be easily checked. Also, being practical meant both that they were considered less important than the theroetical ones (an idea that was popular since Platon thought that the idea of the things were independent and more important that the actual things).

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    11. Re:Damn those Christians by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      E. The original writting was deteriored naturally and, when the monk found it, it just was unreadable (or uncomplete) for the techniques he had at hand.

      F. The Church just thought Archimedes was not so important.
      We are used to machines and we know we need it for our way of life, but that does not mind that it has always been that way. The ancient Greed did valuate more the teoretical work than the practical, and did not think much of the manual labour (after all, that was the work for the slaves and the poorest, less educated people in the polis), so designing practical solutions was not a way to be in the elite. If Archimedes got famous was both by the number of their invents and because many of them become used in the war against Rome.

      As the Church did get most of its values from the Greeks and Roman cultures, the idea that practical science was inferior to teory was adopted. Maybe the one who erased the original writtings knew what it was and, without being against its contents, just thought that it was the less valuable text in the library.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    12. Re:Damn those Christians by DingerX · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, the concept of monastic "order" really begins in the beginning of the twelfth century with the military orders, the cistercians, and the premonstratensian canons.

      Second, you're assuming this is a western manuscript, when some of the other contextual marks suggest that in fact it was produced in Constantinople. Basilean monks did know Greek. And in the west, it depends on where you're talking about. Spain was an active center for Greek/Arabic/Hebrew -> Latin translation of texts, especially scientific ones. Southern Italy had large communities of Greek speaking peoples. Hell, even the bishop of Lincoln and not a bad scientist in his own right, Robert Grosseteste, knew and translated ancient Greek.

      Something abstract such as "The Church" is not an historical agent; individual churchmen can be.

    13. Re:Damn those Christians by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      ...and hum, don't forget a certain zealot monk and the Alexandria Libraries. Phwoosh crackle crackle.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    14. Re:Damn those Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that work wouldn't have surivived as long as it did before being erased if some monk hadn't copied it in the first place

    15. Re:Damn those Christians by ribo-bailey · · Score: 1

      +5 correctness modifier... paper was expensive, and frequently reused.

    16. Re:Damn those Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another possible explanation: Considering the region and the timeframe of the possible creation, the Archimedes text could have been scraped to replace a manuscript damaged or destroyed in during the Crusades. Since the region was heavily damaged by invading western Christians (who did not grasp the fact that yes indeedy, those people wearing desert-sensible clothing were Christians too!! and not infidels) on their way to the Holy Land, priorities had to be set. And a set of "field notes" on obscure mathematics may not have been as important in the view of 12th and 13th century scriptors.

      Of course, the romantic in me wishes that the creator did so intentionally, to preserve the book (since it was well known that a palimpsest could be read with difficulty) in the face of danger...

    17. Re:Damn those Christians by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      Source?

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
  9. particle accelerator? by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're using a particle accelerator hey? Well I hope if anything goes wrong they remember to depolarize the fibrulator.

    1. Re:particle accelerator? by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's ok, they reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Will it contain the complete documentation on... by James+A.+Y.+Joyce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Archimedes' estimations of the value of pi by drawing polygons with lots of sides?

  11. Re:Will it contain the complete documentation on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean "when Archimedes totally freaked out on mushrooms?"

  12. Screw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Did they find the screw?

  13. So if I understand right... by FlyByPC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Archimedes helps invent modern mathematics,
    Modern math (after surviving the Dark Ages) enables modern science,
    Modern science gives us nifty toys like particle accelerators...
    ...which we're using to read Archimedes' writings.

    I can't help but think the guy would really get a kick out of that.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:So if I understand right... by Mancat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, wouldn't be crazy if like... Archimedes was stuck in a time loop, and he's all not really alive and shit? You know, like... What if we invent a time machine and bring Archimedes back, and he's all like "what the fuck? You idiots this time machine is the shit that resets everything!" and then the scientists all bust out laughing and shit, but then when they try to send him back in time the time machine all starts smoking and shit, really crazy you know, and civilisation gets set back to the time where Archimedes wrote that crazy ass formula down! Then he's all like, shaking his head, because he knows it will happen again in a few thousand years.

      Woudln't that be some crazy shit yo?

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    2. Re:So if I understand right... by Punboy · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think the guy would really get a kick out of that.

      Or a coronary...

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    3. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can't help but think the guy would really get a kick out of that.

      Or a coronary...

      Or a corollary...
    4. Re:So if I understand right... by jd · · Score: 1

      Ah, but what is the corollary of a coronary? A cauliflower?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm certainly not anti-Christian or anything, but just so you know, you're completely bass-ackwards here. Muslims preserved ancient Greek and Latin texts during a time when the West was completely ignoring them and letting them rot.

    6. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give him a long enough lever and he'd shove it up your bum...yo.

    7. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Just a small correction here. Modern mathematics didn't "survive" the Dark Ages as such. Mathematical though continued to progress after the time of Archimedes, this time in the hands of the Arab empire in places thoughout North Africa, Arabia and Central Asia. Contributions from the Hindus to the east were also extremely significant (For example the number notation we use today, 1, 2, 3 etc)

      In fact one can easily argue that mathematics flourished during the dark ages - just not in Europe. Those crazy Europeans still thought the earth was flat even though Eratosthenese (A Lybian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes had accurately measured the size of the earth sphere at the time Archimedes was writing.It's also worth checking out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shatir for a quick comment on how the renaisance got kick started through the likes of Copernicus

    8. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Contributions from the Hindus to the east were also extremely significant (For example the number notation we use today, 1, 2, 3 etc)

      Actually, if I remember correctly (especially considering the time I've spent in Turkey, Qatar, and other Southwest Asian nations), the notation of our numbers is Arabic. The Hindi characters were adopted by Arabs because of its appearance, but more importantly, it reads right to left like the rest of the written Arabic language. Then again, my friends in Turkey and Qatar, and people I've known from Inda are all wrong ... accoridng to you.

    9. Re:So if I understand right... by RWerp · · Score: 1

      In times of Columbus, those crazy Europeans already knew the Earth was not flat (at least the guys at the University of Salamanca knew that when they dumped Columbus' proposal to sail West to reach Indies).

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    10. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't untill the crusades and christiandom came around and basically backed the Muslims into militarism that they started acting stupid.

    11. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that a lot of the crusades involved Muslims killing Muslims, right? Muslims are not and were not a unified group. A lot of them hate each other because of their religion.

    12. Re:So if I understand right... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Hence why Star Trek: Enterprise was cancelled.

      --
    13. Re:So if I understand right... by LadyLucky · · Score: 1

      Could your post be any whiter?

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    14. Re:So if I understand right... by rockspider · · Score: 1

      FlyByPC wrote: Archimedes helps invent modern mathematics, Modern math (after surviving the Dark Ages) enables modern science, Modern science gives us nifty toys like particle accelerators... ...which we're using to read Archimedes' writings. I can't help but think the guy would really get a kick out of that. I'll be amused if the text uncovers showed we all had the wrong idea about Archimedes' math, modern science, particle accelerators and consequently the text in question.

    15. Re:So if I understand right... by rockspider · · Score: 1

      FlyByPC wrote: Archimedes helps invent modern mathematics ... Modern science gives us nifty toys like particle accelerators... which we're using to read Archimedes' writings.

      I'll be amused if the new text showes we all had the wrong idea about Archimedes' ideas, and consequently math and particle accelerators (and thus the new text too).

    16. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Bullshit. On capturing the library of Alexandria, they used the contents to wipe their heathen asses on. Or to fuel the hot tub, or something. Wogs.

    17. Re:So if I understand right... by empaler · · Score: 1

      Beautiful response. I was at a loss, myself...

    18. Re:So if I understand right... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, if whoever writes Jim Anchower over on http://www.theonion.com/ did it.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    19. Re:So if I understand right... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      A coroner.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    20. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hindi characters were adopted by Arabs because of its appearance, but more importantly, it reads right to left like the rest of the written Arabic language.

      Wrong. Hindi is read left to right.

    21. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In fact one can easily argue that mathematics flourished during the dark ages - just not in Europe.

      True; Europeans were too busy inventing insignificant things like books and punctuation.

      Those crazy Europeans still thought the earth was flat

      Bullshit. Nobody thought the earth was flat. The cosmology of the "Dark Ages" called for a spherical Earth at the centre of a series of other spheres (which held the moon, sun, planets, and stars), the outermost sphere being Heaven. It was further believed that the poles of the Earth were too cold for life to survive there, and that the equator was too hot to pass through, the black skins of Africans being taken as proof that anyone attempting to travel too far south would burn to death.

      These "dark ages" you speak of saw the flourishing of art and literature, the invention of many things we take for granted, and, among other things, the first attempts to translate scientific texts into the language of the common people (rather than classical Latin, Greek, or Arabic, none of which were ever similar to any spoken dialect), and the discovery of America by the Vikings. The myth of the decline of learning and descent into ignorant savagery only arose later.

    22. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could your post be any whiter?

      Would you be so kind as to explain the meaning of this expression?

      - Learning English.

    23. Re:So if I understand right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, informative??? The ROMANS burned the library of Alexandria.

  14. X-Ray Fluroescence by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The actual technique used is quite ingenious, but has been around for a while. If you blast the nucleus of an atom with X-Rays of a frequency specific to that type of atom, it will radiate electrons. No other atom will do so, so you can get an exact picture of what is there.


    (Actually, the reverse is also true. If you bombard atoms with electrons of the right energy, the atoms will radiate X-Rays.)


    The very brief article submitted by the poster does not do this subject justice, as this is a highly sophisticated story involving the specific nature of ancient inks, the problems of 12th century economics which reduced many cultures to reprocessing books (the results of which are called palimpsets), the fact that these texts are direct transcripts of the original scrolls written by Archimedes, in their original format, the fact that the book was stored in a city that was virtually razed to the ground during the 4th Crusade, the fact that the book went missing during the early part of the 20th century, etc.


    It also doesn't cover the fact that the pages are badly damaged by fungi, age, fire, vandalism, the whole palimpset process, poor storage, etc.


    This is a truly amazing story, that covers both some of the most ancient and most modern of sciences, involving wars, religion, several renesance periods without which the text would have been lost forever, and numerous other adventures that would put the entire Indiana Jones series to shame.


    This story deserves telling in the full, especially on a site like Slashdot where people have the background to appreciate the nuances involved.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This story deserves telling in the full, especially on a site like Slashdot where people have the background to appreciate the nuances involved

      M$Winblows is teh sux. The gummint is out to get us. Dumbya sux0rs. Gentoo is l337. Star Wars rules.

      Yup, we appreciate it.

    2. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by Mr2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... this is a highly sophisticated story involving the specific nature of ancient inks, the problems of 12th century economics which reduced many cultures to reprocessing books (the results of which are called palimpsets)

      I'll probably get modded down for this spelling nitpick, but I think you mean "palimpsests". I misspelled that word before a national audience in 1992, don't want you to make the same mistake in this international forum. ;)

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However old text you re-discover, gentoo is never gonna be 31337. Debian might be, slackware most certinaly is.

    4. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by Seumas · · Score: 4, Funny

      by jd (1658)

      This story deserves telling in the full, especially on a site like Slashdot where people have the background to appreciate the nuances involved.


      You must be new here.

    5. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by jd · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want to use a GNU new() on a yew?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by mboverload · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Although many will be quick to jump on the damn monk that wrote over one of the most important texts in history, that is what saved it from destruction and damage.

      PBS did an AWESOME ducomentary on it.

    7. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by jd · · Score: 1

      If anyone jumps on the 12th century monk, feel free to turn them in for necrophilia.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't think you can get charged for necrophilia for just going at it with a pile of dirt. However I have never tried, maybe you should, and you could tell us the answer?

    9. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by NanoGator · · Score: 1, Funny

      "M$Winblows is teh sux. The gummint is out to get us. Dumbya sux0rs. Gentoo is l337. Star Wars rules."

      Sometimes I wonder if karma originally started as a model of capitalism. Most comments like that are an appeal to those with mod points.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by Seumas · · Score: 1

      That's kind of like killing someone and claiming "but I saved them from getting run over by a bus!".

    11. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you blast the nucleus of an atom with X-Rays of a frequency specific to that type of atom, it will radiate electrons. No other atom will do so, so you can get an exact picture of what is there.

      I thought this was particularly cool because it's the exact technique used to determine the majority of new protein structures. I would not have predicted that it would be equally well suited towards a completely different type of imaging, particularly for something so esoteric as ancient manuscripts. (On a side note, I almost ended up studying ancient history and literature but decided to stay in science, and now play with particle accelerators. If I'd known I could do both, my career might have turned out differently.)

    12. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      If I thought the monk wrote over it to save it then I wouldn't think he was a total bastard. I see little chance that he had such good intentions. It was simply a fortunate coincidence.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    13. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by rvr · · Score: 1

      I was hoping someone would tell more info, so went looking. The manuscript is owned by a Baltimore, MD art museum. Some of it is on display there and you have access to the manuscript because you "...may turn on an ultra-violet light on one of the leaves of the book." and see hidden text. There is lots (by no means complete) information there.

    14. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by jZnat · · Score: 1

      don't want you to make the same mistake in this international forum.

      And he would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling spelling nerds, and your dog too! :<

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    15. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      I thought this was particularly cool because it's the exact technique used to determine the majority of new protein structures. I would not have predicted that it would be equally well suited towards a completely different type of imaging,

      It's not an obvious application, but wouldn't ancient dyes have been organic in origin? It was just a matter of someone connecting the protein-identification process with this problem.

    16. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by jd · · Score: 1
      Ancient dyes tend to be a mix of organic and metal. Iron and copper are popular in early inks, because they produce colours that last - iron oxide is not going to reduce any further.


      Proteins tend to be examined more by using longer wavelengths interacting with either specific chemical bonds or with the protein as a whole. (For example, microwave ovens use the same general idea, by blasting hydrogen-oxygen bonds with microwaves tuned to the specific frequency they absorb at.)


      Just about anything in nature absorbs energy at a frequency unique to it. I've mentioned before that I think this would be a good place to start with curing viral and bacterial diseases, as RNA and DNA are certainly identifiable molecules. If you could find some way of blasting a person with radiowaves at the right frequency to shatter a virus, but not impact anything else in the body, most illness would be a thing of the past.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:X-Ray Fluroescence by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      It's frustrating that on this elaborate web site, there isn't a single decent photo.

  15. I just hope ... by vlad_petric · · Score: 4, Informative
    The text is not going to be "partly censored" as the Dead Sea Scrolls were until the 90's.

    Dead Sea scrolls

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:I just hope ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Where's the diff's?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:I just hope ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I hate to bust a good conspiracy theory, but I've worked with the DSS, going on 2 years now, and I've got 2 words for you to define the contents therin: bor-ing.

      You want to know whether you can pull your brother out of a pit using a stick on the Sabbath? Well then, thems your texts, but other than that, it's a bit of a yawn fest.

      The reason for the partial and delayed release of the DSS has everything to do with academic jealousy and selfishness and absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the scrolls - and if you don't believe me, just go ahead and read the fully released DJD translations. I think you'll find naught conspiritorial grist for your paranoid mill.

      - HolyRomanUmpire
      (Who is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Umpire)

    3. Re:I just hope ... by Lifewish · · Score: 1

      I think the point was less that the DSS were believed to contain revolutionary new insights and more that supposed members of the scientific community were blocking independent access to the data they were working from. That means the scientific approach of peer review and replication of results couldn't come into play. It was the uncertainty that bothered everyone.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    4. Re:I just hope ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So "curiosity" is "paranoia". All I did was ask for the difference between the suppressed (as everyone knows) version, and the complete one. You're the one projecting "conspiracy" and paranoia on it. I'm not going to read the fully released versions - I don't worship boredom the way some people do. But scholarly analysis, like the difference between two versions of a text, is what society is paying people like you to do. Answering at least simple questions about the history of a famous artifact is what gets the bills paid. The rest is academic selfishness - that also, by the way, is in direct conflict with the contents of the scrolls, as far as I know.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:I just hope ... by Spoing · · Score: 1
      The text is not going to be "partly censored" as the Dead Sea Scrolls were until the 90's.

      Who cares about that pop-religion? For me, it's that old-time religion, Zorastrianism!

      (A bit serious, though: The Christian and Muslim religions are branches of the Jewish religion, just as the Jewish religion is a branch of Zoroastrianism. Yet, each of these groups claim to be 'the one true' religion -- though credit goes to the Jews as they don't have an aggressive and distructive recruiting drive.)

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    6. Re:I just hope ... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      They prefer to call it "derivative works of an IP", not "censored". ;)

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    7. Re:I just hope ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      They don't currently have an aggressive and destructive recruiting drive.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:I just hope ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they just have an eggressive and destructive policy towards the palestineans, backed up by the imperialist states of america.

    9. Re:I just hope ... by Spoing · · Score: 1
      They don't currently have an aggressive and destructive recruiting drive.

      Good point.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    10. Re:I just hope ... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      Of course it will. Archimedes' mirrors and light to cause burning of ships during sieges idea has defense application for SDF2 and-

      Terminal Session Ended UNLAWFUL CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ACCESSED Please stay where you are for apprehension PUT DOWN THE NACHOS AND STEP AWAY FROM THE OVERCLOCKED PC Your friends, Department of Homeland Security

      CARRIER LOST

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  16. Could it really have been that important... by johnamus · · Score: 0

    ...if the monk erased and wrote on the parchment. Animal skins may have been hard to come by, but it seems that if anyone would see the importance of academic writing it would have been a monk. Out of the 174 pages that make up the work, the monk probably chose to write over the section deemed least valuable.

    1. Re:Could it really have been that important... by Ayaress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I posted above (and got modded flamebait somehow), there's quite a few explanations for this.

      A. The monk may not have realized it was something special at all. If you don't understand the material at hand, two papers on the same subject tend to look an awful lot alike.
      B. He may have assumed more than one copy existed, and for that matter he may have been right at the time, and only afterwards were the other copies lost. It's really not an unreasonable assumtion to make - most of the monks in medieval Europe spent their whole lives copying and recopying various texts. You'd expect any book to find its way into a monastery would end up being duplicated many times over, and sent to other monasteries where it would be duplicated furthur. This didn't always happen, of course, and I personally suspect that simple carelessness like this is responsible for a great deal of lost writings, and not mindless book burning and censorship that gets blamed so often.

    2. Re:Could it really have been that important... by Vreejack · · Score: 4, Informative

      To add irony to the story, it was covered by a simple prayerbook. The discoverer was only able to make a tantalizing transcription of some of the text before it was lost. Before it was recovered some con-artist had painted fake devotional paintings over some of the pages in order to increase the value. Then I believe it was bought by a collector who did not understand what it was and taken to France, where his heirs made the re-discovery.

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    3. Re:Could it really have been that important... by kfg · · Score: 1

      For the answer to your question get thee hence and read The Name of the Rose.

      For the answer to the question that doing so will bring to mind the name of the rose is. . ."rose." Just thought I'd get that out of the way so you can read the book properly.

      KFG

    4. Re:Could it really have been that important... by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it contains proof that god doesn't exist, and the monk erased it because of that. Put yourself in the monk's shoes.

      --
      Anonymous Coward
    5. Re:Could it really have been that important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the monk that did the deed was part of a hierarchy. If the text was important to the hierarchy the monk would not have been able to erase it. There wasn't much carelessness over thing the hierarchy did think important, only about things they didn't.

    6. Re:Could it really have been that important... by hey! · · Score: 1

      B. He may have assumed more than one copy existed, and for that matter he may have been right at the time, and only afterwards were the other copies lost.

      If you've ever read any historical novels that set in medieval monastaries, the burning of the scriptorium it the predictable highlight the way a roast pig is the predictable highlight of a luaua. While in real life obviously you aren't going to be sure that you are going to have a fire over the next few months the way you are when you're reading a book, over the centuries it's pretty common.

      I seem to remember a recent Science News article on a researcher using mathematical techniques used in evolutionary biology to explain the extinction of literary works, as well as the way manuscripts vary from each other. If you look at a work as a species, it has certain characteristics which from a modern evolutionary standpoint predispose it to mutation and extinction. Chiefly, medieval books don't tend to travel very much, and reproduce very slowly.

      The chief mechanism by which a book can reproduce and move to a new geographic location is by somebody requesting a copy be made for their collection. Medieval record keeping and commincation being what it is, it is possible that nobody outside the monastary knew that the monastary had a copy, and nobody in the monastary had any idea if the book was rare.

      Another aspect of this particular work is it may not have had a great deal of reproductive fitness. History as a scientific didn't exist, and while ancient authority was respected, the importance of original sources wasn't understood. Therefore, it may well be that there weren't many requests for reproduction even though the medieval scholarly respect for Greek mathematics was well established. Much of the material in the work was probably convered in later, more comprehensive works.

      I think you're right on both counts, and possibly I'd add a third, which is that the monk who did this may not have perceived the book as important because nobody had ever requested copies of the book or needed the book for scholarly purposes. The kind of scholarship that would use the unique properties of a historically important manuscript didn't exist yet.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. I am the Keymaster by AVIDJockey · · Score: 2, Funny

    They'll be fine, as long as they don't cross the streams.

  18. Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I watched a program about the amazing discoveries uncovered through the painstaking analysis of this parchment.

    One of the most stunning discoveries was the description by Archimedes of his method for finding the area under a curve though a rudimentary form of integral calculus, 2000 years before Newton or Leibniz!

    He established the law of levers, found the relationship of the area of a cylinder to a sphere (which he believed to be his greatest discovery and he directed a model of which to be inscribed on his tomb), described the relationship of volume and buoyancy in water (his eureka! moment), among many other mathematical and mechanical discoveries.

    A true genius that stands with Newton, Pascal and others.

    1. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Seumas · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've held an additional grudge against religion for a very long time over just this sort of thing. Can you imagine where our society might be today if they had not so carelessly obscured and nearly vanished such incredible mathematical advances?

      We're talking knowledge that took the better part of two milleniums for us to rediscover on our own. In this circumstance alone, religion directly set us back who knows how many hundreds of years.

      And no, I don't mean this as a flamebait in the least. Just a rather obvious factual observation. And claiming "well, we don't know that it wouldn't have been destroyed by someone else in some other way anyway" is hardly adequate justification.

    2. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Ayaress · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like blaming religion for stuff too, but in this case, you can't really pin it on them.

      A lot of monks basically spent their lives copying and recopying texts. There wasn't anything else to do with them, really. Without them, a lot more information would have been lost. ALL of Archimedes works would probably be gone. With them would likely go Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, etc. etc. Only the rich Arab kingdoms preserved more knowledge through the Middle Ages than Christian Monks, and even there, it was religion at work, not society in general.

      A lot was lost in that time. Libraries and monastaries burned down, taking God knows how much knowledge with them. Some books were lost, damaged by accident, and some were even destroyed intentionally, but imagine how much survived, and remember that it would all have been gone without the Christian and Muslim clergy that preserved them. The Rennaisance would have been a blank slate without them. We'd be lucky to have rediscovered all of it by now. Heck, we probably wouldn't even have realized it was lost yet.

      I think this situation comes down to pure carelessness. A monk needed parchment, and the only way to get it was to erase something. Because they spend their lives copying text, many monasteries would have multiple copies of any given text on hand. I think it most likely that the monk assumed another copy existed, and that one could be sacrificed for the need at hand, and be replaced later when paper was available.

      Think of it sort of like back in the old days when floppy disks served most people's removable storage needs, and there never seemed to be enough of them around. You needed an extra 250 kb on your hard drive (back when that was a lot of space), and you noticed an old document you hadn't touched in months. "Oh, yeah, I've got that backed up on a floppy disk, I can delete that." So you do. What happens later when you realize that you didn't have it backed up, but that you'd erased the disk you'd stored it on in order to back up some other file? You've just lost that file.

    4. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      While you are at it blame the romans too. They burned down the library of alexandria which at the time contained pretty much every important document the greeks made plus quite a few arabic and other cultures too.

      That right there probably set mankind back several hundred years.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    5. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Seumas · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Okay, see - you *can* blame them, because it wasn't just a matter of copying and recopying "text". It was a concious choice to destroy (this involved cutting up and rebinding and erasing the contenst of) a book filled with one thing, so that you can replace it with another thing (your religous dogma).

      It doesn't become any more of a concious choice than that. This would be like over-writing someone else's floppy, if overwriting their floppy required you to dissassemble the casing, remove the floppy magnetic disc inside, remove the metal head from the disc, cut the casing and the floppy platter, reassemble them into a different shape, recover the floppy plater with the casing, glue the pressing back together, insert it back into the computer, delete the contents that remain on it and then fill it up with your own content.

      Certainly a bit more than an "uh oh".

    6. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

      It's amazing what brilliant advancements have been lost or indefinitely delayed to appease the self-serving dogma of various religions and political systems. Some places keep the sciences in the dark ages due to *both* religious dogma and self-serving political systems. *cough*

    7. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by melikamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you for spelling this one out. I agree, most of the losses of classical works were not due to a crusading fundamentalist attitude. Rather, it was a simple matter of recycling the materials which were of little or no interest to anyone. We can blame the organized religion for taking us into a cultural recession of the middle ages (in which the classical works became irrelevant), but that's a whole different matter. I'd say, what the monk did was actually prudent for what had known.

    8. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where's the retarded idiot mod-point category when you need it, like for the above post?

    9. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by melikamp · · Score: 1
      1. Religion is the cause of all evil, back then and even today. (parent)
      2. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. (Weinberg)
      3. At least one good religious person exists. (you've met them)
      4. There exists a person who is good and does evil. (1 and 3)
      5. Parent is religious. (2 and 4)

      Q.E.D. bitch.

      P.S. I hope Maddox won't sue me for appropriating his style...

    10. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      so what? it survived because of his actions.

      it is better than "damn..it's getting cold in here...throw some more Greek on the fire"

    11. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by metlin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ah, but my comment was assuming that there is no religion whatsoever (facts apart that your logic is quite as flawed as my trollish post).

      On the other hand, it did help me vent out some frustration. I'd do anything to see a world where religion is taken care of once and for all.

      Religion and religious nuts should simply be shoved up and their genes gotten rid of once and for all. Freakin' retards.

    12. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Calling your religion "science" does not make it any less of a religion. A doctrine which states that an entire slice of the world culture -- a very thick and jucy slice at that -- is pure evil is as much a fundamentalist doctrine as any other modern christian dogma.

    13. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I was once reading an article by Phillip K Dick. In it he said that one day his doorbell rang and there was a young lady who had a christian fish symbol on her necklace. When he looked at it he said he got momentarily a vision of life as it was 2000 years ago. He said that he thinks all time periods exits simultaniously and it's just that we can't percieve all of them.

      Anyway I bring this up because it seems to me that nothing has changed in the last 5000 years of human history. The more that things change the more they stay the same. Here we are in 2005 having the same friggin fight that Archimedes had. It's as if the last couple of thousand years never happened. An invisible powerful man who lives in the sky is still the answer to everything. What's worse he regularly talks to the president of the United States and tells him to invade iraq.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    14. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ok, see - you *can't* blame it on them. A lot of historical documents - a vast amount, certainly not all religious - survived because these Christian monks copied it.

      As for taking the disk apart... that's not analogous. He did what he needed to do to reuse the medium he was working with. You're simply dumb if you can't understand that.

    15. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Check out how long it would take to create new sheepskin: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150319 &cid=12603436

    16. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romans? It's been argued that it was 'barbarians' who burned down the Library of Alexandria. At the time this would have been invading Muslims. Albeit there's currently no overwhelming evidence of who actually destroyed it.

    17. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A truly excellent post. I'll have to remember this.

    18. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Sheep don't grow on trees.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    19. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by cthugha · · Score: 1
      And claiming "well, we don't know that it wouldn't have been destroyed by someone else in some other way anyway" is hardly adequate justification.

      Well, it is, sort of. Recall that Archimedes was casually killed by a Roman solider without very good cause. It's arguable that Western civilization needed to progress to the point where it's scientists and scholars could get on with the job of discovery in relative peace and quiet, else it would quickly destroy itself with the new weapons that inevitably result from scientific advancement. Even the most "enlightened" powers of the Classical period practised genocide against their enemies and regarded it as a legitimate tool of statecraft: imagine what they would have done with modern weapons.

      Humanity needed to grow up a bit before it could be trusted with dangerous knowledge, and the fact that its wise men and the products of their labours (such as the texts that are the subject of the article) were at high risk of destruction as a result of our then unbridled savagery was possibly a useful limiting factor on our scientific development.

    20. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by shimmin · · Score: 1

      Much of what was lost was lost before the Middle Ages. Most of the ancient contributions to science and mathematics happened before the first century BC. As Roman rule spread to encompass much of the Hellenistic world, interest in these subjects waned. There was a brief resurgence in interest for about a generation in the 2nd century AD (Galen, Ptolemy, and Heron all hail from this period), but other than that, ancient science was moribund by imperial times.

    21. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by khallow · · Score: 1
      I'm sure that if it had not been the clergy, someone else would have done it.

      Bull. The clergy were the only ones that were doing that back then. That's why the Roman Catholic church got so influential. They were for a millenia the gatekeeper of any sort of education in Europe.

      Religion is the cause of all evil, back then and even today.

      So every time you cut off someone on the highway, it's because of organized religion? I guess the Popee commanded you to talk on the cell phone while you were doing that.

      One of these days, there ought to be a showdown getting rid of all those believers in voices in the sky - the only way for science to truly triumph is if religion is taken care of once and for all.

      Oh, you're just another religious freak. After all, I'm curious how you plan to get rid of all those "believers" without committing wholesale acts of evil yourself? Oh that's right. It's not evil when you're doing it to further your religious agenda.

    22. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...imagine what they would have done with modern weapons...

      Probably much the same thing as we've been doing with them, wouldn't you say? I mean, the most "enlightened" power today isn't precisely averse to some wanton killing of its own, now is it?

      Look, what you're saying could just as easily be the other way around. Having access to knowledge and science could just as easily be what got at least some of us out of that unbridled savagery you speak of. And what you think should be limited is the exact thing we needed to "grow up a bit".

      It isn't possible to think about "something" until you have at least an inkling of what that "something" is. As an example: the morallity of stemcell research and applications can't start until you, at the very least, have an idea of the existence of the "something" called a stemcell.

      Or do you think there ought to be an authority that keeps "dangerous" knowledge from the lay person? "Dangerous" as defined by that authority, naturally. Hey, that's exactly what the church used to do in the dark ages.

      We've basically tried the dark age way of doing things for something like a 1000 years. It wasn't fun and we shouldn't go back to that.

    23. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Ah, but take care, lest your anti-religious stance, itself, be caught forming a belief system, sir.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    24. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that expert opinion. What was the name of the university where you majored in Medieval Studies? Because you obviously know a lot about monasteries and medieval manuscripts.

    25. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by idonthack · · Score: 1

      I watched a program about the amazing discoveries uncovered through the painstaking analysis of this parchment.
      ...method for finding the area under a curve...
      ...law of levers...
      ...relationship of the area of a cylinder to a sphere...
      ...described the relationship of volume and buoyancy...


      Those were not discovered from this parchment, people have known he discovered those for years. If they were just being read from the parchment, they wouldn't have had time to make a documentary.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    26. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Raven_Stark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Religion played a big part in the fall of Rome. Perhaps much more of that great civilization would have survived had it not been for the Christians. In the name of censoring for God, they paid monks to chisel the 'naughty bits' off works of art, destroyed beautiful pagan temples and otherwise defaced and destroyed the local maxima of culture and science. At that time, at least in West, Rome was the high point of human accomplishment.

      Here is some rather biased support for what I say about Christianity's role in destroying knowlege and setting us back a thousand years. Figure out for yourself how much of it is true.

      I believe that to judge someone or something one must take motives into account. The monk was trying to spread the Christian virus. That he accidentally saved a work of Archimedes doesn't make him or his religion good. Do we call drunk drivers good people if they accidentally run over bad people?

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    27. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      So every time you cut off someone on the highway, it's because of organized religion?

      Cutting someone up on a road is not 'evil' by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, pretty much every war, including the war of drugs and the war on terror have their roots in religion. Why is it religious people are so loose with the word evil? Oh yeah, it works, just ask the current fear mongerers who are extensively using religion for their own objectives (both sides).

      Religions only potential saving grace is that it can be argued that it is responsible for the shape of human society.

      After all, I'm curious how you plan to get rid of all those "believers" without committing wholesale acts of evil yourself?

      See, that's a religious person talking there; you assume that to stop something you must destroy it, with all the killing/crusading that history has shown that mankind is capable of when he believes he is righteous.

      Scientists don't do things that way. One day it will be proven beyond all doubt that the classical view of god is a human fabrication, and that my friend will be a great day. It may even bring about peace on earth...

      I'm not saying there is no god, that is not for me to say. However, it is clear to someone was only the slightest bit of critical thinking that the classical religions are folk-tales that have gotten out of hand. Man created god in his own image to explain things that were unexplainable at the time; had I been around back then I would likely have believed it myself. Nowadays, we know that the earth is a planet and it was "created" over a much longer period than seven days. Your "lies for children" are no longer required.

    28. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by cthugha · · Score: 1

      ...the most "enlightened" power today isn't precisely averse to some wanton killing of its own, now is it?

      Rome publicly endorsed the massacre of civilian populations to quell unrest in foreign territories as official policy. If Bush II tried the same thing today, even in the present climate, he would be immediately impeached, and the countries of Western Europe would seriously think about whether they should start pointing their nuclear arsenals in the direction of the mainland United States. The difference in moral and political sensibilities between modern Westerners and their ancient counterparts cannot be overestimated.

      Having access to knowledge and science could just as easily be what got at least some of us out of that unbridled savagery you speak of.

      There are certainly a number of enabling technologies, for example the printing press, which promoted mass literacy and the education of the populace, thereby allowing government through sophisticated concepts such as the social contract and adherence to the rule of law rather than through crude threats and appeals to religion (i.e. "It is right to follow the king because God says so, and if you say otherwise you'll suffer a messy and painful death"). The printing press does not depend on the calculus. Modern artillery does.

      Or do you think there ought to be an authority that keeps "dangerous" knowledge from the lay person? "Dangerous" as defined by that authority, naturally.

      Where did I suggest anything like that? I was simply making an observation about the nature of scientific progress. On the basis of the above example, I might also say that we tend to invent the stabilizing technologies (like the press) before making significant advances in the direction of the destabilizing technologies (such as gunpowder and ballistics), which is a good thing. Of course the Church argued against it, but now you're conflating active political intervention in human progress with the operation of blind historical forces. I don't recall making any comment on the former, only about the latter.

    29. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by AutopsyReport · · Score: 0
      Cutting someone up on a road is not 'evil' by any stretch of the imagination.

      Using your example, a war is evil, but cutting someone off is not. So if you shoot at someone (and miss), that's evil, but cutting someone off at 60mph on a highway (potentially rendering the same effect as shooting at someone with a gun) is not evil? Makes sense!

      See, that's a religious person talking there; you assume that to stop something you must destroy it, with all the killing/crusading that history has shown that mankind is capable of when he believes he is righteous.

      You've conveniently taken his statement out of context. Original post: One of these days, there ought to be a showdown getting rid of all those believers in voices in the sky - the only way for science to truly triumph is if religion is taken care of once and for all.

      Now, you don't have to be more than a half-wit to realize that "showdown" and "getting rid" means killing. Now back to your reply...

      Scientists don't do things that way.

      Right. Scientists don't do anything on that front, in fact. It's not the scientists fighting to keep their civilizations alive and intact, it's the grunts of society who would normally be paid minimum wage to clean toilets that are on the front lines. Comparing scientists to soldiers is just laughable :)

      Man created god in his own image to explain things that were unexplainable at the time; had I been around back then I would likely have believed it myself. Nowadays, we know that the earth is a planet and it was "created" over a much longer period than seven days. Your "lies for children" are no longer required.

      So who has all the answers, then? Can I buy the book?

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    30. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Heh, you stole the meat of my reply! :) And a nice take on the "showdown".

    31. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One of these days, there ought to be a showdown getting rid of all those believers in voices in the sky"

      This is from the gp post.

      "See, that's a religious person talking there; you assume that to stop something you must destroy it, with all the killing/crusading that history has shown that mankind is capable of when he believes he is righteous."

      This is from your post.

      Don't you just love looking like an idiot?

    32. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey - it's Doc Ruby we're talking about. He's an expert on all the ways religion can be blamed for the decline and fall of the human race.

      You can trust him.

    33. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I believe that to judge someone or something one must take motives into account. The monk was trying to spread the Christian virus. That he accidentally saved a work of Archimedes doesn't make him or his religion good. Do we call drunk drivers good people if they accidentally run over bad people"

      Think what you want about Christianity (although I think you're a bigot for generalizing all Christians in such a way - but hey, it's no skin off my back), but Christian monks have recorded and in doing so saved a great deal of historical information, much of it completely irrelevant to Christianity.

    34. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Comes to 7 weeks, 4-5 of which (3 outside of winter) are occupied of moving them with a pole in a bath 2-3 times a day, another week is letting them dry, another week is putting them in baths or scraping or hanging. Compared to transcribing 174 pages of Archimedes, and scraping those pages clean.

      Thanks for the details - that definitely would be a lot less work for a 12C monk than the destroyed transcription work plus the scraping.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    35. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by khallow · · Score: 1
      Cutting someone up on a road is not 'evil' by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, pretty much every war, including the war of drugs and the war on terror have their roots in religion. Why is it religious people are so loose with the word evil? Oh yeah, it works, just ask the current fear mongerers who are extensively using religion for their own objectives (both sides).

      The other reply was better, but here's my take. We're getting way off topic, but I'm right here. When I cut someone off deliberately, I chose to do so. And I increase the risk of injury or death to everyone in that car plus all other cars nearby just so I have a marginally shorter travel time? It may be mildly evil, but it is an evil act.

      You need to read the thread. The person I was replying to, was acting like a total religious nut and making outrageous claims. Further, he appears to lack discernment. By this, I mean that there's no distinguishing between religions, the local lutheran church or an organization of Native American shamans is equivalent to the Nazi religion or the totalitarian version of Communism as practiced in Russia, China, or Cambodia which can be considered the the four most grevious cases of evil in the 20th century. After all, they are all religions. Then there's the massacre of Armenians by the secular "Young Turks" in Turkey in the early 20th century. What part did religion play in that act of evil?

      I get tired of people (like the original poster) making blanket claims like "Religion is the cause of all evil, back then and even today." They should think next time and read up on a little history.

    36. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And the credentials you have for debate? Because you have no skills - or you'd demonstrate some. Without either, you're quite the hypocrite for shooting off your mouth, right? And even credentials - they're no match for skills. It's officious denial, with empty titles of authority, that kept Europe in the dark for a millennium. I guess you like it that way.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    37. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Monks were notoriously patient, and the process for converting goats to parchment looks well within their schedule and budget. Basically, parchment comes attached to the local sacrifice^Wtithe.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    38. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      So if you shoot at someone (and miss), that's evil, but cutting someone off at 60mph on a highway (potentially rendering the same effect as shooting at someone with a gun) is not evil?

      Are you drunk on the communion wine or something? That is such a weak argument I don't why I'm even responding. To compare inconsiderate driving to shooting someone is insanity. Yes, they may have similar outcomes, but so does old-age. Is old age evil? What about bad diet? Is Justin Timberlake evil because "he's luvin it"? (actually, bad example, I'm sure we both agree he is the spawn of Satan! ;-)

      Now, you don't have to be more than a half-wit to realize that "showdown" and "getting rid" means killing.

      Call me a halfwit if you want, but at least I don't deliberately misquote people to fight a failing argument. From the quote that you oh so convinently truncated:

      science to truly triumph is if religion is taken care of once and for all.

      Now, when someone says science 'takes care of' something, do you envision a bunch of nerds taking on a priest, or do you see theory and proofs? His language may have been confrontational, but only a madman would take 'a showdown' between science and religion to become anything more than a metaphoric war. Science doesn't have millions of people willing to die in waves for their place in heaven/paradise. In fact, the opposite is true, people like Darwin almost never published their work because of the violent reaction he expected. Burning at the stake, torture, all the other 'treatments' for heresy.

      Right. Scientists don't do anything on that front, in fact. It's not the scientists fighting to keep their civilizations alive and intact, it's the grunts of society who would normally be paid minimum wage to clean toilets that are on the front lines. Comparing scientists to soldiers is just laughable :)

      Soldiers are NOTHING more than the leaders who lead them. And you know nothing about history (outside of fables) if you think war is about "fighting to keep their civilizations alive and intact". Where do the crusades fit into that? The 9/11 attacks? The Nazi's? You know nothing of war; it always comes down to the three R's:

      • Religion
      • Racism
      • Revenue

      So who has all the answers, then? Can I buy the book?

      See, that's the ezact kind of thinking that has gotten us into this state! There may be no answers. There may be no reason for us to be here, we could be a moss on the side of the earth. Or we could be some aliens grand plan for something. I don't know, and your minister/priest doesn't 'know' either. I'm assuming that you are of a Christian derived faith...consider this: if you had been born in any other country you would likely have completely different religious views to what you hold now, and you would be equally as convinced that you were correct in those views.

      On the otherhand, I have the utmost respect to those who STUDY religion in an attempt to find the answers. It's like getting car insurance coverage, you don't just stop and take the first offer. Most religions know this, which is why they make a point of starting their indoctination on potential subjects as young as possible.

      Anyone who simply falls into their parents religion and accepts it blindly as the true path is a moron. At the very least, check out the version history of the book you put so much faith in. Most scholars who have studied how the modern version of the bible came be accept that its a checkered history with a lot of omissions and translation errors, mixed in with a stew of Middle Aged English politics and language. Some scholars argue that the word translated as 'virgin' WRT the birth of christ is correctly translated as 'young girl with no children', but as the old testiment mentions virgin birth for the messia, the Christian dogma changed to make it fit better. Likewise, compare the books of the New Test

    39. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Rostin · · Score: 1

      While it's easy to dismiss certain Christian academics because they are part of a fringe element (I'm thinking of intelligent design theorists who are Christians), in the area of philosophy, Christians (even very theologically conversative Christians) are well represented.

      You may be justified in believing that philosophers who are Christian theists are mistaken and irrational on that point, but it seems a little overly brazen to claim that "it is clear to someone was only the slightest bit of critical thinking that the classical religions are folk-tales that have gotten out of hand." I don't think reputable universities hand out doctorates in philosophy (which is, among other things, the study of critical thinking itself) to people who clearly have no critical thinking skills.

    40. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      * Anyway I bring this up because it seems to me that nothing has changed in the last 5000 years of human history. The more that things change the more they stay the same. Here we are in 2005 having the same friggin fight that Archimedes had. It's as if the last couple of thousand years never happened.*

      Ahh sorta brings a whole new meaning to the words "The earth stands still" as God is proported to have said. Of course early christians took it to mean the earth doesn't move and theirfore is the center of the universe or at least the solar system.

      And we all know what saying anything against that meant for people like capernicus and galileo.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    41. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Interesting reply. I still disagree that driving can be 'evil', at best (or worst) it's inconsiderate and selfish. Most of the time IMHO bad driving is done by people who simply don't know that their actions could harm others, it's not a conscious action that they tailgate & are not aware of other traffic. Evil is a word that is used too much nowadays if you ask me. In my book, to be evil you have to know that what you are doing is wrong. I make for a bad back-seat driver when I see unsafe driving, but I am fully aware that it's not on purpose most of the time. I saw a Carlin quote on a sig that sums it up: consider someone of average intelligence; half the population are more dimwitted than that!

      I wouldn't go so far as so say religion is the cause of everything bad. However, you cannot deny that it isn't one of the biggest components. As I said in my other point, the worlds nasties come down to three things ultimately: religion, racism and revenue. The three R's I call them.

      "or the totalitarian version of Communism as practiced...": you won me over with that statement there by the way, you actually know what you are talking about, which can be rare around these parts. If you just said 'communism is evil' I would have ignored you. Yup, the absence of religion is religion itself, and surpressing religion is just the same as forcing it on others.

    42. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      it seems a little overly brazen to claim that "it is clear to someone was only the slightest bit of critical thinking that the classical religions are folk-tales that have gotten out of hand."

      Not at all, all you have to do is look at the history and the number of ideas 'borrowed' from other religions. Pretty much every ancient philosophy has a great flood somewhere. The question is, did that flood happen and get interpreted and re-interpreted into the modern texts, or was it simply made up? I don't know that answer, but I'm not going to just blindly believe a book that claims to have all the answers. These books were ultimately penned by man, with his own, local and historical preconceptions tainting his views and translations of the events.

      I'd much rather follow no god than to waste my life on a false one. My own turning point was when I asked a devout Christian friend "if you led a good life but did not follow their religion, would you go to heaven?". The answer, no, as you would get from most religions to this question, made me not want to know their god frankly. If god is what you say he is, then worship is unnecessary and to be honest hypocrisy. However, those views don't get people cash onto the collection plate, so the religious that did not enforce worship died out. When I realised that modern religion itself came to be as a result of evolution (the ultimate irony), I lost any faith I had left. The successful religions are successful for good reasons, not because they are accurate. For example, Catholosism promotes having lots of children. Textbook darwinnian evolution!

    43. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Rostin · · Score: 1

      I did not claim that Christianity was true. Contrary to what you wrote, I claimed that many rational, intelligent people believe it. If critical thinking is exemplified by anyone, it's by those whose thinking skills are constantly examined, criticised, and corrected. There are many Christian philosophers who fit this description. The mere existence of professional Christian philosophers who write articles for refereed journals, hold professorships in secular universities, and etc, is to me good evidence against your claim (or what your claim inmplies, really) that Christians are only Christians because they utterly lack critical thinking skills. Even if I were completely unable to respond to your post above, there would still be good reason to believe that at this point in time, even if Christianity is completely false, it is not so obviously false that everyone with critical thinking skills is compelled to agree about that. So, your claim is brazen and unwarranted unless you are putting forth some novel and decisive new arguments against Christianity (which you aren't).

      I'm not going to just blindly believe a book that claims to have all the answers. These books were ultimately penned by man, with his own, local and historical preconceptions tainting his views and translations of the events.

      Relatively few intellectually sophisticated Christians would suggest that you should. Interestingly, the few who are so fideistic believe very little of what the bible actually says. Most theologically conservative Christians are very interested in evidence for the reliability of the Bible.

      Also, I think everyone is fully aware of the fact that men wrote the scriptures, and that those men were influenced by their language, culture, experiences, and so on. That affects how we exegete the bible, but it doesn't force us to one conclusion or another about its accuracy or whether its ultimate origin was divine.

      I'd much rather follow no god than to waste my life on a false one.

      I hope that's true of every honest person.

      My own turning point was when I asked a devout Christian friend "if you led a good life but did not follow their religion, would you go to heaven?". The answer, no, as you would get from most religions to this question, made me not want to know their god frankly.

      That's an interesting story in light of this conversation. Are you sure your rejection of God is based here on critical thinking, or does it have more to do with your preferences and feelings?

      If god is what you say he is, then worship is unnecessary and to be honest hypocrisy.

      How so? I suspect what you are arguing here is that, if God is really God, he doesn't need us to worship him. He should have high enough self-esteem to get along without constant praise and encouragment from the likes of us.

      But surely self-esteem issues aren't the only reason for praise. People write poetry about sunsets.

      What if there is a moral obligation to love what is good?

      However, those views don't get people cash onto the collection plate, so the religious that did not enforce worship died out.

      That may be the case. I'm going to grant that it is for the time being, because I can't see how it has much bearing on whether Christianity is true.

      When I realised that modern religion itself came to be as a result of evolution (the ultimate irony), I lost any faith I had left.

      Once again, a far from decisive claim, even if true in the sense that you mean. It's no secret that Christianity has "evolved" and is to this day "evolving" to be at last completed at the end of time. There's a reason Christians talk all the time about "salvation history." God works in time.

      The successful religions are successful for good reasons, not because they are accurate. For example, Catholosism promotes having lots of children. Textbook darwinnian evolution!

      I agree that that's true in many case

    44. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the same AC as before.

      [...Rome publicly endorsed the massacre of civilian populations...]

      I wasn't thinking of Bush so much but of the USA since WW2, and yes it isn't endorsed as such, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki does in my opinion count as massacre and civilian, so did Vietnam and Cambodia. Both were accomplished with the most modern tech available, and for "good" political reasons. Or so the politicians at the time believed.

      I just don't see much reason to believe that the Romans would increase their killing in an unlimited manner if they had invented modern tech. Nor do I see any reason to believe that we were morally catching up during the dark ages. Morality changed much more in the renaisance. If the "thinking for yourself" idea had taken root straight after the fall of the roman empire morality would have changed a lot there and then. It wouldn't have changed in the same manner as it did, but change it would.

      [...The printing press does not depend on the calculus. Modern artillery does...]

      Modern being the key word here :-). Ancient artillery didn't depend on calculus either. The modern press, however, very much does.

      [...Where did I suggest anything like that?...]

      You didn't as such. The words "dangerous" and "useful limiting factor" set that one of. In the same way that "blind historical forces" act like a warning sign or key to how you seem to think.

      Technology is a two edged sword. "No tech is dangerous in and of itself" and "all technology is dangerous", are both true statements. For instance mobile phones are used by rioteers to create maximum mayhem and also to save lives. Standardised nuts and bolts were invented by Withworth for mass producing rifles, and put to good/bad use by mister Colt as well. There isn't much in the way of aparatus these days that doesn't rely on nuts and bolts (standardised) most of it not bad at all.

      And blind historical forces are a bit weird as wel. As they can only be te result of all the decisions all the people make, in the light of the natural and political climate they live in. If the weather is bad and the crops fail poeple have to starve or find other food etc. If you take those decisions and circumstances into account then, like with emergent properties, there won't be much substance left to those historical forces. It's not a historical force that decides if a certain tech is dangerous, only people can do that.

      I reacted to your original post because I found the way you seem to look at technology rather weird. You probably think the same of mine.
      Actually, in his book "cosmopolis" Steven Toulmin says that by the end of the nineteenth century much of the prerequisites for the culture change of the sixties was by and large in place. Then we had 2 world wars and it was put back half a century. I don't believe we did any significant amount of moral catching up during that time. The morality or lack of Vietnam wasn't trashed out until that particular war had gone on for a considerable time.

      Cheers.

    45. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      The mere existence of professional Christian philosophers who write articles for refereed journals, hold professorships in secular universities, and etc, is to me good evidence against your claim (or what your claim inmplies, really) that Christians are only Christians because they utterly lack critical thinking skills.

      Yup, I'll conceed there, 'twas a bit wide-reaching. We all know all generalisations are false, so it would be wrong to assume all Christians (or any other religion) don't actually think about what they are doing. But I'd say the vast majority of people who would call themselves Christian don't think about it and are only Christian because of the life/culture/country they were born into. You clearly aren't in that bunch, as aren't several folk I know. I know a lot more who follow blindly however.

      Most theologically conservative Christians are very interested in evidence for the reliability of the Bible.

      I've actually only ever heard of the history of the bible from people like that. I've not seen (or had my attention held) by the research of any non-believer into this subject. Never actually thought about that until you suggested it. As I said though in another post, I do have a lot of respect of those who question and come to their faith via reasoned thinking. I just can't agree with many of their arguments.

      Are you sure your rejection of God is based here on critical thinking, or does it have more to do with your preferences and feelings?

      It's more when I heard the exact same claim from just about every religion I checked with. It just sounded wrong, and it ties in with my thoughts about the longevety of several religions. Remember, we are coming to this debate 2000 years too late. The "one true religion" may have died out 1800 years ago.

      Want to know my personal beliefs? OK, maybe not, but here goes...the way I see it is that the bible may or may not cover true events. However, I am all to well aware of how myths become legends then to be held as fact. UK history is full of such things. Robin Hood is believed in by many folk, but most historians will say it's a romantic fantasy. Now, growing up around this sort of history probably helps, in fact I even remember school classes on different interpretations of events in history.

      So, back to the bible. I think people should view it as a guide to life really. It's contents may or may not relate to actual events, however it's message is clear. If there is an afterlife, I'd like to believe the better parts are available to those who led decent lifes. Not a perfect life, I don't believe that's possible, but if you help others, don't cheat, steal, be violent (or support violence, IMHO the neo-cons are going straight to hell) and are aware & regretfull of anything you have done wrong (within reason), then surely that's cool.

      So, why am I pissed of about religion in general? Because so many other people use and abuse it to get their ways. Fear and religion are very powerful things, you can move entire countries with them. Should some parchment come to light that disproves something that (in my mind) causes a large amount of woe in the world, I would not be all that upset. However, it won't work as like the Christians who believe in evolution, the teachings will mold around what is accepted fact.

      Also, I think everyone is fully aware of the fact that men wrote the scriptures, and that those men were influenced by their language, culture, experiences, and so on. That affects how we exegete the bible, but it doesn't force us to one conclusion or another about its accuracy or whether its ultimate origin was divine.

      That's simply not true for the general population. The vast majority of those who believe in the bible think it is 100% the word of god. Many of these people think it was written in English originally. Seriously. That's the way it is for most, they are taught to accept it in it's entirety, or they don't even think about quest

    46. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      Well, its pretty safe to say that religion has had a large part in damn near ( if not all) wars. Wars tend to lead to new advances in science. I see religion driving wars, and science discovering ways to end wars.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    47. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by coopex · · Score: 0

      >>So who has all the answers, then? Can I buy the book?
      >See, that's the ezact kind of thinking that has gotten us into this state!

      As a side note, and because I want to invent a new word, I propose ezact: an guesstimated answer to shut people up who can't handle uncertainty. A sample usage would be: Charlotte wanted to know when dinner would be ready, but when I told her in about a half hour, she wanted a more specific answer, so I said in ezactly 23.458 minutes.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    48. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by westlake · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I like blaming religion for stuff too, but in this case, you can't really pin it on them.

      Classical Greek thought was rooted in deductions based on first principles. Think of the elegant abstractions of Euclidean geometry. Archimedes was very much the outsider in his taste for experiment and in learning from the imperfections of the real world.

      That makes it all the more striking that Archimedes was known and read in Christian Byzantium for 900 years, 300-1200 AD, and influced the design the great 6th C. church of the Hagia Sophia.

      The Archimedes Palimpsest rested somewhere in the libraries of Constantinople for 200 years before being erased in the years of chaos which followed the sacking of the city in the Fourth Crusade of 1204 Archimedes Palimpsest.

      You could forgive the surviving scriptoriums for thinking that the civilizing influence of their prayer books was more urgently needed than instruction in higher mathematics.

    49. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      It was the romans, look it up. I lilke how everything is the fault of the muslims these days though.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    50. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by moz25 · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. I have come to a similar realization of evolutionary mechanisms in the formation of successful religions. To go further, I would say that a successful religion in fact depends on its central god to NOT exist.

    51. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by cthugha · · Score: 1

      but Hiroshima and Nagasaki does in my opinion count as massacre and civilian

      The decision to use nuclear weapons was made in the context of a defensive war where it was thought that the Japanese would fight to the last civilian rather than surrender. Whether the decision was right or wrong, it is nonetheless different from deciding to use a nuclear strike to impose control in the imperial sense.

      so did Vietnam and Cambodia

      True, although in the case of Vietnam it was necessary to engage in serious spin to sell the war to a populace already in a state of fear due to the Cold War, and Cambodia resulted from a state of utter social collapse. We're not fundamentally different from our ancestors, but our views have changed markedly so that we need to be seriously convinced on the necessity of mass organized violence.

      Nor do I see any reason to believe that we were morally catching up during the dark ages.

      We didn't: that was largely a product of the Reformation and the Renaissance. The Age of Discovery followed and was arguably a consequence of those prior events. I don't want to endorse the mediaeval Church, but consider the consequences if it hadn't existed to provide a centre of political stability and unity for the warring tribes of Europe in the Dark Ages. The Church simply filled the power vacuum that the fall of Rome left.

      act like a warning sign or key to how you seem to think.

      Well, the terms "warning sign", "key", and "seem" seem to act like warning signs or keys that indicate fuzzy thinking in this context, if you ask me. ;p

      Technology is a two edged sword. "No tech is dangerous in and of itself" and "all technology is dangerous", are both true statements.

      True.

      If you take those decisions and circumstances into account then, like with emergent properties, there won't be much substance left to those historical forces.

      Yes, however, regardless of their actual substance, emergent phenomena, such as biological evolution and macro-economics, do seem to have an awful lot of influence on everyday affairs.

      In fact, the observation I made can be considered from an evolutionary perspective. Societies sufficiently advanced morally and socially will be able to handle the technological advances with significantly dangerous consequences, societies that aren't will probably just blow themselves a few branches down the tech tree until they develop in other areas. Like I say, this isn't to suggest that we have fundamentally changed, we're biologically identical to our ancestors, and even ancient societies produced many significant enlightened individuals, but the average moral development of ancient societies in comparison to modern Western civilization is marked. This isn't something that can be considered by looking at the conduct of a few wars, you have to examine the prevailing attitudes towards those wars and the effect of the prevailing social norms on everyday conduct. Being killed while carrying on your everyday business in modern society is remarkable and causes considerable upset when it happens, but the same thing happening in ancient times was much more de rigeur.

      I reacted to your original post because I found the way you seem to look at technology rather weird.

      No, I just look at technology with an appreciation that there are very few technological solutions to sociological problems, and I was just making a casual observation in response to the OP's blanket statement that the mediaeval Catholic Church specifically and organized religion generally was responsible for all the evils of the world. And technological development isn't good or bad, it just has consequences.

    52. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is an afterlife, I'd like to believe the better parts are available to those who led decent lifes. Not a perfect life, I don't believe that's possible, but if you help others, don't cheat, steal, be violent (or support violence, IMHO the neo-cons are going straight to hell) and are aware & regretfull of anything you have done wrong (within reason), then surely that's cool.

      Well, the thing of it is that the Bible constantly says that we can't achieve God's satisfaction through good works. Even the best "heroes of the faith" like Moses, David, Samuel, Solomon, Daniel, Jeremiah, and all the rest still were reminded every year of their seperation from what God wanted them to be. They had to kill an animal every year, and that represented the bloodshed necessary to atone for their sin. As good the lives that they led, they still were seperated from God by their sin.

      I think the Bible is very clear that you can do as many good works as you want but you can't atone for your own sin.

    53. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus...

    54. Re:Archimedes employed rudimentary calculus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...the context of a defensive war...]

      Hmm, if you start the conflict with Pearl Harbor then that is correct. If you start with the forced trade agreement of half way the 19th century, the picture becomes a bit different. A large part of empire is sphere of influence, that stays true if you don't use the word empire.

      [...was necessary to engage in serious spin...]

      Oh, certainly! but that wasn't my point. Even with al the changes in morallity and the soulsearching of significant parts of the populace the end result was still carpet bombing to subdue the natives. And if the Roman empire had access to bombs and planes they would have bombed in the exact same way. The amount of cheering from the crowd might be different, you're probably right about that. I'm still not convinced however, that they would have destroyed their own civillisation with it. Not directly anyway. It might have come about through overspending.

      [..that indicate fuzzy thinking..]

      I'll admit that that was perhaps not the clearest bit of text I ever produced ;-). However your choice of words led to certain conclusions of mine which led to me writing which led to this conversation....

      [...the average moral development of ancient societies in comparison to modern Western civilization is marked...]

      True. Casual violence used to be much more in fasion than it is today. I just don't see how having access to modern tech would make them go completely out of control. And if it doesn't, your "possibly useful limiting factor" isn't useful, just a possibly limiting factor. So for now I'll keep my belief: that they would do much the same with it as we do.

      [...there are very few technological solutions to sociological problems...]

      I used to think so as wel. And it is quite often true that with technology we don't do a lot more than shift the problems around until they end up somewhere that doesn't bother us enough to take further action. But the exeptions are of enormous importance. Sewage disposal and clean drinking water, to name but two.

      But since I've realised it's much more intertwined. For instance sewage works for London were only possible with steampumps. The city had grown too big for other solutions. As a matter of fact the city had grown past its bearable limits by 1500 or so. The smog problem was already big enough then that people weren't allowed to burn coal when the queen was in town. But of course steampumps rely on boiler technology, which in turn relies on metallurgy. And if you know how to cast a 50ton beam for the engine that means you know how to cast all sorts of useful things. Needless to say that most wont be useful for any social problems, But you can't separate them. It's a package deal so to speak.

      [...mediaeval Catholic Church specifically...]

      To the extend that the church dictated peoples lives "all" is only a slight exageration. Of course it's not "in the world" but limited to the territory they controlled. If you claim all power then you get all responsibility as well, responsibility is not an optional extra. And their outlook was such that wat happened in this life was far less important than the eternal souls in the here after. The only comparable thing we have today is a theocracy like Iran. I don't think there's a lot of evil going on there that the clergy isn't responsible for.

  19. After this project . . . by Gabrill · · Score: 5, Funny

    They will turn the accelerator to more useful purposes, like seeing all the women in the Sears catalog without their underwear.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    1. Re:After this project . . . by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Dude, what Sears catalog are you reading? They aren't wearing clothes in mine...

      Wait, how do you spell "Sears" again? Uh-oh...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    2. Re:After this project . . . by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

      Gosh, I imagine the sight. Probably even worse than Paris Hilton. Don't call it 'useful purpose', PLEEEAASEEEE!

  20. Big Toys for Big Boys by Quirk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Archimedes claimed: "Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world."

    He developed the claim into The Claw, which must have been a wonder to see in action. I've never been able to find out if the Roman soldier who killed him was punished or had anything to say. Archimedes was an engineer who applied the principles of Euclidean geometry.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:Big Toys for Big Boys by ddimas · · Score: 2, Informative
      I've never been able to find out if the Roman soldier who killed him was punished or had anything to say.

      That soldier was tortured to death over three days by being flayed alive and rubbed with salt, with the entire legion watching. The commander was FURIOUS!

    2. Re:Big Toys for Big Boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      got a reference for that, or is that your own imagination run amok while you suck science's dick?

    3. Re:Big Toys for Big Boys by ddimas · · Score: 1

      Read some history idiot. It is well attributed, or did you mean I had to produce the commanders diary?

    4. Re:Big Toys for Big Boys by feronti · · Score: 1

      Well attributed by whom? I'm not saying you made it up (and it certainly sounds plausible... Roman punishments were quite harsh), but I couldn't find anything. Granted, I only used Google, but if it's so well attributed, I'd expect some kind of reference in Google. But I'm willing to grant that it was a bad search term or that the references don't appear in Google--Google certainly is not a complete repository of knowledge, though it's sometimes frightening how complete it is:) But, for future reference, generally when someone asks for a reference, it's more productive to provide it, than to call the asker an idiot.

    5. Re:Big Toys for Big Boys by coopex · · Score: 0

      However since the market for a device to flip over ships was rather limited, he later devloped The Club.
      This was even less successful, as the automobile had yet to be invented.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    6. Re:Big Toys for Big Boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well attributed by whom? I'm not saying you made it up (and it certainly sounds plausible... Roman punishments were quite harsh)

      I can't find it either. Livy 25.31 reads:

      • "It is recorded that amidst all the uproar and terror created by the soldiers who were rushing about the captured city in search of plunder, he was quietly absorbed in some geometrical figures which he had drawn on the sand, and was killed by a soldier who did not know who he was. Marcellus was much grieved and took care that his funeral was properly conducted; and after his relations had been discovered they were honoured and protected by the name and memory of Archimedes.

      Plutarch's account can be found here it's chapter 19, and, giving slightly different accounts of the death, gives essentially the same account of Marcellus' reaction:

      • it is generally agreed that Marcellus was afflicted at his death, and turned away from his slayer as from a polluted person, and sought out the kindred of Archimedes and paid them honour.

      So no reward, perhaps, but no other punishment. Treated as polluted != tortured to death. Where is the other source? And don't be childish about it either, I don't have RE in front of me right now

  21. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by MrDomino · · Score: 4, Funny

    #include <stdio.h>
    #define NINE 8 + 1
    #define SIX 1 + 5

    int
    main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
    printf("\nWhat do you get when you multiply six by nine? %d", SIX * NINE);
    return 0;
    }

  22. As it turns out... by lheal · · Score: 4, Funny
    It was Archimedes who was quoted as saying,
    Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth.

    That got translated from the original Attic Greek into common Greek, then into High Latin, then Vulgar Latin, and then into Old French, then soon after that into Old English. When William the Conqueror took over England in 1066, the new language that got created got it a little mixed up at first:

    Give me but one firm spot on which to sit, and I will move my bowels.

    Somehow it doesn't seem to mean quite the same thing, but I can't quite figure out where the difference is.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  23. I am the Gatekeeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  24. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by jnik · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Grecians were famed for fine art,
    And buildings and stonework so smart.
    They distinguished with poise
    The men from the boys,
    And used crowbars to keep them apart.

  25. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by DeKO · · Score: 1

    Google knows this one:

    Answer

  26. All Hail Lord Gozar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No text. Full comment in subject heading.

  27. If Archimedes was alive today... by jd · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...his thoughts would probably be more like "why is it so dark in here?"


    (Apologies to Pratchett fans)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  28. The ironic part is... by jd · · Score: 1
    ...that the last few years of Archimedes' life was spent in a futile (but magnificent) attempt to stop the Romans pillaging his city of all kinds of IP. And people, materials, etc.


    It's also ironic that he was killed by a Roman soldier, who was trying to steal his IP by stealing him. (He was busy and told the soldier to go screw himself.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:The ironic part is... by thanasakis · · Score: 1

      I found a very good reference here.

      "During the Roman siege of Syracuse, he is said to have single-handedly defended the city by constructing lenses to focus the Sun's light on Roman ships and huge cranes to turn them upside down. When the Romans finally broke the siege, Archimedes was killed by a Roman soldier after snapping at him ``Don't disturb my circles,'' a reference to a geometric figure he had outlined on the sand."

    2. Re:The ironic part is... by nosaj72 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "That's why it's always worth having a few philosophers around the place. One minute it's all Is Truth Beauty and Is Beauty Truth, and Does A Falling Tree in the Forest Make A Sound if There's No one There to Hear It, and then just when you think they're going to start dribbling one of 'em says, Incidentally, putting a thirty-foot parabolic reflector on a high place to shoot the rays of the sun at an enemy's ships would be a very interesting demonstration of optical principles." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods.

  29. NOVA torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a good documentary of this on Nova called "Infinite Secrets of Archimedes".

    You can grab a torrent from digitaldistractions.

    1. Re:NOVA torrent by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Since PBS pays for the creation of their shows with tax dollars and not advertisement, does that make the shows public domain and legal for p2p redistribution?

    2. Re:NOVA torrent by sickofthisshit · · Score: 2, Informative

      PBS pays for the creation of their shows with tax dollars

      PBS doesn't produce NOVA, WGBH Boston does. According to their annual report, only about 11% of WGBH's funding is from government grants and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which could vaguely be called "tax dollars." 21% comes from corporations, 12% comes from individuals, and 21% comes from other PBS stations.

  30. Sad that he died. Good thing he reincarnated by zaxios · · Score: 4, Funny

    as Archimedes Plutonium. According to the aforelinked repository of unblemished truth that is Wikipedia, Archimedes has since discovered

    1. Plutonium Atom Totality theory. According to this theory, there was no Big Bang, but rather growth from a "Hydrogen Atom Totality" into the present "Plutonium Atom Totality", in which "the galaxies are dots of the electron dot cloud".

    2. Fusion Barrier Principle. Quoting Plutonium, "Fission energy is the highest form of energy that is able to be controlled and surpass breakeven".

    3. Unification of the Forces of Physics as a Coulomb Unification.

    4. Stonethrowing theory. This theory states that the difference between apes and humans resulted some 8 to 10 million years ago from a solo quadruped ape that "started throwing rocks overarm and overhead". This activity gave the ape advantages in getting food and more females for mating purposes "by killing other rivals using throwing".

    5. Possibility of global warming reversal. According to Plutonium's theory, there exists a CFC variant or methyl molecule that when produced and released will act as an "upper atmosphere earth air conditioner and reverse global warming"."
    "

    Despite that the brilliance of his ideas so obviously extended the work of Archimedes the Greek, it took the reincarnated Archimedes 44 years to realize that he was in fact Archimedes:

    In autumn of 1994 he claims to have realized that he was the reincarnation of the great early Greek scientist Archimedes, and so once again changed his name to Archimedes Plutonium.

    What I want to know is why we continue to dwell so much on Archimedes' old work when he has been producing so much insight as of late and it has yet to be properly appreciated.

    1. Re:Sad that he died. Good thing he reincarnated by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      "funny" we need a modifier "brilliant" if you had a single Plutonium atom at the center of your brain you would understand.

    2. Re:Sad that he died. Good thing he reincarnated by Captain+Lobotomy · · Score: 1

      Riiiiiight. And chickens have lips.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    3. Re:Sad that he died. Good thing he reincarnated by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      Archimedes Plutonium? Sounds like a follow up to a certain movie.

    4. Re:Sad that he died. Good thing he reincarnated by Enoch+Zembecowicz · · Score: 1
      4. Stonethrowing theory. This theory states that the difference between apes and humans resulted some 8 to 10 million years ago from a solo quadruped ape that "started throwing rocks overarm and overhead". This activity gave the ape advantages in getting food and more females for mating purposes "by killing other rivals using throwing".

      I wonder if he knew Oscar Kiss Maerth.

      --
      "Who's going to believe a talking head?" - Herbert West
    5. Re:Sad that he died. Good thing he reincarnated by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      What are you a freaking idiot. Pass the tator tots.

      For all your freaking idiots out there that don't get it http://www.idbsu.edu/bsuradio/focus/focus1.mp3

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  31. Rambaldi by BBrown · · Score: 4, Funny

    Were any Alias fans (or just Jennifer Garner fans) out there reminded of Rambaldi?

  32. I bet they wished they'd just burned it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of writing over it and 'leaving it in the hands of god'

  33. Full text of Archimedes' Text here by planetoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Old Man Tucket
    Sat upon a bucket
    Eating his beans and grits

    Until he got an urge
    To squeeze hard and purge
    As he got a case of the shits

    The smell wafted and sailed
    For miles philosophers hailed
    Of how it pillaged their wits!

    --
    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  34. Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

    "In the 12th century, parchment -- scraped and dried animal skins -- was rare and costly, and Archimedes' works were in less demand."

    Why would scraped and dried animal skins be rare and costly in the 12th Century farming economy where these monks lived? There were certainly lots of skins, from all the animals. And monks were making their own ink, and spending their lives working on transcriptions and other writing. I don't buy the "necessity" of erasing Archimedes' works, no matter how often they repeat that story to elementary schoolers learning the definition of "palimpset", or how many of us grow up to write stories for newspapers repeating it.

    The "less demand for Archimedes" part does ring true. After 600 years in the hands of the Catholic Church, European civilization had lost most of its heritage of learning and rationality it inherited from the Grecoromans who produced it. So much that it would be another 600 years before the rebirth ("Renaissance") of individual inquiry and reason, leading to the Enlightenment ("you can know it for yourself"), the "Age of Reason", and the rise of science as the most popular way of explaining life.

    Looking at today's antiscience crusade by religious powermongers, it's easy to believe that a monk a thousand years ago just scrubbed the pages. Not for the great value of a blank page for new writing, but to destroy the scary science already written on it. Foreign words, explanations without "god" every other sentence, and especially these writings, where Archimedes tells how his mathematical proofs were derived from physical evidence (mechanics), rather than just consistent language - all inconvenient to a society which demanded obedience from the few people lucky enough to learn to read. Maybe if we can read between the lines in this story, we can learn to avoid the plunges into darkness we get when we erase science in favor of blind faith.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Coverup by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative
      Why would scraped and dried animal skins be rare and costly in the 12th Century farming economy where these monks lived?
      Because it took a lot a scraping, tanning treatments and required specific animals (freshly born lambs for vellum). Anything less would be of the quality of something written on the inside of an ug boot.
      Looking at today's antiscience crusade by religious powermongers
      Once again it's really just politics - the medieval church was not under the delusion that Aristotle was a Christian, but directly challenging what church officials taught, no matter what it was, was undermining their authority so was punished. The roman church was the only major force for higher education in europe for a long time.
    2. Re:Coverup by suchire · · Score: 4, Insightful
      After 600 years in the hands of the Catholic Church, European civilization had lost most of its heritage of learning and rationality it inherited from the Grecoromans who produced it.

      So what do you call all the Platonists and Aristotelian Catholic philosophers? St. Augustine was a definite Platonist, using it to explain Christian ideology in a manner that (attempted to be) rational. Same with St. Aquinas, who was an Aristotelian and hailed as the greatest philosopher of the Catholic Church. Whatever you might think of their Scholasticism, they were trying to be as hyper-rational and logical as one could imagine. Yes, they had definite agendas in mind (i.e. justifying Christianity), but you can't just dismiss them and say that Grecoroman learning and rationality "disappeared."

      If you know any of your art history, Grecoroman culture was also preserved to a certain extent (hence, Romanesque art), but it was later pushed aside by more German and French styles (Gothic), which were in vogue because people liked windows (which Romanesque styles didn't really support) in their Cathedrals.

      --
      Such irE
    3. Re:Coverup by PurpleXanathar · · Score: 1

      Let's take that overwriting the book takes, let's say 5 weeks. Writing a text on a new paper takes, instead 3 weeks. Let be X the time to create paper from sheeps' skins. If X is less than 2 weeks, there is no reason at all to overwrite. Even if he wanted to destroy Arhimedes work, he would have burned it in less than an hour, than created new skin and wrote whatever he wrote. Why didn't he burned it down ? Probably because X is >= 2 weeks. If X is more than 2 weeks, you don't have a point. If X is exactly 2 weeks, and the monk figured that this method was effectively faster saving him an hour, then the genius is the monk, not Archimedes :)

    4. Re:Coverup by cruachan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whoever rated this post as insightful? It's just ignorant. Vellum was a highly costly resource in medieval society because it's obtain from the skin of a young, animal - usually a calf. As generally speaking a cow would only produce one calf per year the cost of producing a calf's worth of vellum is the cost of keeping a cow alive over the winter needed to produce the calf - which was more difficult at the time because in the abscence of root feeds most cattle were slaughtered and salted in the autumn, plus the loss of revenue from allowing the calf to grow.

      Although it's true that there does appear to have been periods when medieval society was relatively affluent - the 12th Century in particular - famine was never far away and the grinding poverty should not be underestimated. There are even accounts of periods where it is remarked by chroniclers that it was not uncommon for peasants to own just a single garment or even none at all. This cannot have been the norm as otherwise the chroniclers would not have remarked upon it, but nevertheless, in a society which is living as close to the edge as medieval europe managed to do it is not suprising that vellum for books was a costly and rare resource

    5. Re:Coverup by ezeri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your whole post can pretty much be summed up with "get a clue".

      Why would scraped and dried animal skins be rare and costly in the 12th Century farming economy where these monks lived?

      You start your post off by showing that your just making stuff up, this is good because it lets any reader who knows anything about 12th century Europe, and especialy anyone with a college degree (I'm pretty sure most schools require Medieval Lit as a GE requirement), know that you dont have a clue. Unfortunately some mod seems to have fallen into the "with out clue" category. You see parchment was incredibly expencive in the Middle Ages. To put it into perspective, it took around 200 sheep to make 1 bible. And while your right that it was a farming economy, the nobles owned all the land, and all of the cattle on the land. Only the wealthy could afford even a single book. Even into the 13th and 14th centuries the largest libraries had at most 1000 books.

      I don't buy the "necessity" of erasing Archimedes' works, no matter how often they repeat that story to elementary schoolers learning the definition of "palimpset", or how many of us grow up to write stories for newspapers repeating it.

      Sure it wasn't "necessary" to erase Archimedes work, but it was definately much cheeper. Imaginge a new notebook cost somewhere in the area of $5k, and you had to write a book, would you a) Buy a new notebook or b) Erase some less important writings. Of course you go on to suggest that the christian monk erased it because it was evil science. But considering every single work of writing that we have that originated durring or before the dark ages was writen by someone who had church sanctioned training? In fact, beyond that, just about everything from the Roman era and earlier can be attibuted to Irish monks who were very much religious. And then there is the the book in question that had Archimedes on it, and oh yeah, it was a monk who wrote that as well. Are you starting to see how your argument doesn't make much sense? The reality of the matter is, some monastery felt a prayer book was a more important use of the parchment than the writings or Archimedes, writings that no doubt existed in other places at the time. Writings that were probably all destroyed by fires and other natural causes.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    6. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      What history are you reading? How many Catholic philosophers are you talking about, in their thousand years of running the show? Compared to the Grecoromans of the previous thousand? Any new ones from the Catholic era, who compare to Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Aristarchus, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, the long roster? And those are just the ones who survived the Catholic custody - how many more were lost through their limited stewardship? How many more were "saved", and even now are "available" only in some church basement in Rome, or languishing under some palimpsest like the document in this story?

      But I look at your post, and note how you turned my "lost most of its heritage and learning" into "disappeared". You exaggerate to dishonesty my assertion, then argue with a strawman. That's in the great tradition of wiping out inconvenient learning, and covering the parchment with one's own story instead, isn't it?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Writing the text on new parchment takes no less time than writing on scraped parchment. But scraping the parchment (174 pages) takes time, probably weeks, if not months - of tedious, constant labor. Making new parchment takes as little as 4-5 weeks, all but a few days of which is waiting (a couple of stirs a day in a bath for most of that). The scraping labor is much greater than making a new one. And scraping destroys the labor of the original 174 pages. About the only thing this censorious monk had in common with Archimedes was the screwing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      But goat parchment requires only a goat and a month of very light labor. And the monk gets to keep the rest of the skinned goat - for eating and whatever else. And the goat's mother also contributes milk, meat, and whatever else they'd carve out of its life. Or a calf.

      Your economics is medieval. Monks were the ones soaking up the meager surplus value in their economy: praying, transcribing, and other work that created no value for anyone else to use to live. While collecting taxes from their penurious neighbors. Even the opportunity cost of an animal sacrificed prematurely wasn't going to matter much, especially when so many young animals died anyway, their skins available to the monks.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here's a clue: only the Irish, with few exceptions, copied the pre-Church texts they had. The rest of "Christendom", apparently, didn't care. Even the monks, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Pope, who owned the nobles - and colleced taxes from the nobles for their purpose. You can invent "probable" fires and other natural causes out of whole cloth. But I find it improbable that the only ancient texts to survive for public consumption were conserved by the outpost most distant from the religious bureaucracy running the empire.

      The "reality of the matter" is that an Archimedes text, that took weeks or months to tediously transcribe, was destroyed rather than spend a month of light labor and some goats to make new parchment. You can project whatever you want onto how they "felt" about it. The economics show that they had at least no regard for the economics, or that maintaining the Archimedes text was a cost in itself.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Coverup by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Producing does take longer - MUCH longer. You don't tke into account from where the material was beeing obtained (freshly born lambs for vellum)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    11. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I also don't take into account the time it takes for Europeans to figure out how to make parchment out of goats. So? Goats get slaughtered all year long. There are plenty of feasts in which many goats are slaughtered. The extra time to make parchment is at most 7 weeks, almost all of which time is waiting.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Coverup by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      The roman church was the only major force for higher education in europe for a long time.

      Having destroyed higher education, the church was all that was left. It's like killing your parents and begging for mercy because you're an orphan.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Coverup by suchire · · Score: 1
      For a supposed attacker of religious dogma, you sure are one hell of a dogmatic.

      Firstly, Grecoroman culture had about 1200 years (the first noted philosopher Thales, who is dated from about 585 BC by the eclipse he observed) to the fall of Western Rome and Latin culture at about 600 AD, while Christianity had a about 800 years (400-1200) in the Middle Ages, before what most people call the Renaissance (which is really just a misnomer). But since you are so anti-religion, lets take the word of Bertrand Russell, a noted famous atheist philosopher. He gives many Greek philosophers, but he also attests to St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, John the Scot, Abailard, St. Aquinas, the Franciscans, and so on. The problem here, of course, is that there is a false dichotomy between philosophy and theology; almost all Church philosophers were theologians. If one doesn't explicitely exclude theologists for being theologists, then we can also consider people like St. Benedict, St. Francis, St. Ignatius, and so on, all the people that had ideas about how to live and what the structure of the world is (which is really what philosophy is all about).

      The church actively saved tons of Grecoroman culture, and most of it, in fact, was not "lost" during the Middle Ages. Also, it's a relatively false claim that the Renaissance brought about a secularization of the people. Contemporary historians are now of the belief that during the early Renaissance, people became *more* religious, and religion became more widespread. During the Middle Ages, religion was mostly confined to the wealthy and the members of the clergy. Most people saw it was there, but it didn't really affect their lives. In the Renaissance and thereafter, religion became more widespread, and people started to practice, and the laity became a huge part of the religious movement. So you can't really put this strange dichotomy between the Medievalists and the Renaissance.

      The main difference in the Renaissance was not that they discovered Grecoroman culture again, because they'd done that a while ago, but that 1) Wealth started being democratized 2) People started invoking Grecoroman republics to justify seizing power (cf. Cosimo de Medici, Lorenzo de Medici). Those two lead to people being antiquarians (i.e. not really reviving Grecoroman learning, but learning about it because it was fashionable). You'll remember that Latin only really survived because of the Church; how many countless books would have been lost if not for the preservation of Latin in the west and Greek in the east by the Church? Plato, Aristotle, and many other famous Greek philosophers only survived because the Church preserved them. It's not like they didn't recognize the value of such things.

      You exaggerate to dishonesty my assertion, then argue with a strawman.

      Sheesh. You're more in the tradition of wiping out inconvenient learning than the Catholic church is. People as dogmatic as you who talk about subjects before they even have an adequate, working knowledge of them are the people who lead to things like Kansas' problems with evolution, or the people in favor of intelligent design, and so on. Get with the 21st century, man; try reading first.

      --
      Such irE
    14. Re:Coverup by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Totally idiotic reasoning,

      a) the try for controlling the wave of knowledge by the catholic church is not a middle age thing, it is more like rooted back into the age after the rennesance and only related to religious works. b) Europe fell into sort of a dark age only in areas where the romans never were, so the areas were dark before. France, southern england, spain, all the ex roman parts kept high standards of knowledge, although many works were lost over time, the monestaries were places of trying to preserve the ancient works.

      You can see that if you go into a european monestary and see the huge really old libraries. Part of the work of the monestaries was to preserve the works and teach.

      Third there were lots of catholic philosophers who preached very openly towards a good eduction (the scholastics was an entire philosophy related to it)

      Third, there were areas where the standards of eduction and science never went lowe than roman levels and infact were improved, Spain for instance under islamic rule was the root of all european universities, paris was the second one. Then there was Constantinople which basically was the gateway of goods and also the gateway of books between east and west, with lots of libraries and bookshops dedicated the preservation and copying of the ancient works. The arabs got their knowledge over Constantinople, they increased the knowledge in mathematics and medicine severely (one thing the eastern roman empire did not manage, due to constant struggles with its neighbours and lazyness caused by immense wealth9 and it flooded back to europe mostly over Spain, with Granadas universities as entry points.

      Also Europe was not entirely dark before the rennesance, way back in the 12th century when the political situation all over europe had calmed down (the Hungarians were the last peoples flooding into europe in the 11th century), there was the first rennecance which led to the rediscovery of architecture and related mathematics, which rooted in the building of Cathedrals in the ex roman part of europe which is called France. This Rennecance was stopped by famine and plaque and basically again was triggered 100 years later due to stabilization and cultural exchange between Byzantine and Italy (in fact a number of Discussions and Lectures Pleton did in Italy triggered them). The result was the age we call now rennesance. But saying that all over Europe went into a dark age because of the catholic church is plainly wrong, the ex roman areas (well maybe except Britain) never fell into an entirely dark age and outside of europe the knowlege was flooding although the speed of increasing was slowed down for whatever reason.

    15. Re:Coverup by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • Let's take that overwriting the book takes, let's say 5 weeks. Writing a text on a new paper takes, instead 3 weeks.

      No, let's say that re-using pages of an existing book is essentially free in this context, or at least a lot cheaper than getting new pages. There might have been limited supply of pages for writing as well, at least limited supply of inexpensive pages.
    16. Re:Coverup by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      *sarcasm*
      Oh I'm sure the marauding barbarian hordes which brought down the western roman empire causing a total collapse of society had nothing to do it it.
      *sarcasm*

      Nice troll. It was the church that preserved all the ancient texts we have today concerning Ancient Rome and Greece. Really, if your conspiracy theory had any merit, we would not know anything about this Archimedes fellow or his other works.

      Look around you, most democracies today are loosely modeled on the Roman and Greek experiments with democracy.

      I do not hate you because I know that you attack out of ignorance. Humans instinctively fear the unknown and attack what they fear.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    17. Re:Coverup by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Check your math. The average extra time is 6months & 7 weeks. Sheeps don't fuck all year long, as humans do. And also the problem in middle ages was lack of food - so people usually couldn't afford to kill animals right after birth, because it was usually wiser to let them grown a little, kill most of them at Autumn and have food to survive winter.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    18. Re:Coverup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >St. Augustine was a definite Platonist

      And when did he live? Yes, at the founding of christianity, so he was still old school.

    19. Re:Coverup by ezeri · · Score: 1

      The "reality of the matter" is that an Archimedes text, that took weeks or months to tediously transcribe, was destroyed rather than spend a month of light labor and some goats to make new parchment.

      Well, first off, the monk still had to spend the month of labor to write it, and second, if you still want to ignorantly proclaim that parchment was cheap and any monk who wanted one could just get a hold of them no problem, go for it, I'm done arguing that point.

      You can invent "probable" fires and other natural causes out of whole cloth.

      Yes, fires destroyed almost all of the writings from that era. I can't believe your even suggesting otherwise, because it's realy elementry knowledge. See books were so expensive, that most libraries kept them chained up to prevent theft, and so, in the case of fire, a quite common occurance in a day when everything was flamible, and fire was the only source of light and heat, it was very difficult to get the books out to safty in time.

      But I find it improbable that the only ancient texts to survive for public consumption were conserved by the outpost most distant from the religious bureaucracy running the empire.

      And I believe it is improbable that aliens are living on the moon. Do you realy expect me to argue against stuff you just make up? I'm not going to do it, you need to get a little more up to date on your history before this discusion is going to make it anywhere.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    20. Re:Coverup by cruachan · · Score: 1

      But parchment is not the same a vellum, and your medieval monk would only wish to use the finer material for holy texts. Also, whilst it is possible to make vellum from the skin of a young goat, calf vellum was strongly preferred.

      As to monks soaking up meager supluses, well apart from the medieval mind seeing praying as crucial for the well-being of the community, they also provided lodgings for travellers, hospitals, employment, charity and much else.

    21. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Just who is spouting dogma? I think for myself, showing why the dogma, that valuable texts were probably destroyed ideologically, rather than according to some false economics. I back up my attack on the dogmas with facts and logic. I get led down some road pitting the Christian philosophers, slaves to their one legitimate book, to the vastly superior Grecoroman philosophers, upon whom the Christians relied. Those Christians were almost entirely restricted to ethics, which, while certainly a priority for thinkers and doers, is cramped by the Church dogma that makes their conclusions tautological. In the fields which include Archimedes, the Church bet on Ptolemy and a host of other propped-up mistakes about the physical world, all sanctified by decree. And the Grecoroman philosophers surpass the Christians in metaphysics. Christian metaphysics is mostly spin on Greek philosophy of "essence" and "soul", often merely translating books available only to the privileged mouthpieces of the Church, standing on the shoulders of giants hidden from the congregations.

      You swing from hypocritical cries of "dogma" to dragging in another strawman: you want to argue with someone "anti-religion", because that makes you feel stronger (with "god on your side"), so you call me that. I am anti-church. You can't clothe the diseased institution of the Church in the garment of "religion", though your favorite philosophers claim a Church monopoly on it. The Church you're defending was about to start burning "heretics" in the Inquisition, right about the time Archimedes' scientific work was scraped clean for some more propaganda about the fantasy world that replaced it. People can believe whatever they want - but when they justify with those beliefs actions like destroying knowledge and murdering people, no philosophy protects their institutions from the judgement of history.

      A judgement we can make only because the influx of knowledge from outside the tyranny of the Church undermined its control over all knowledge in its empire. You try to throw yet another strawman into the argument, something about "secularization" in the Renaissance, which you contradict as if I had somehow said anything about it. The fact is that science, the rational investigation of nature unfettered by Church thought police, regained momentum after a thousand years of Church suppression. Because thinking for yourself destroyed Church dogma. This palimpsest was a late example of the success of the Church (if the Eastern brand in their Coke/Pepsi dogma wars) in wiping away accumulated knowledge that showed a superior civilization predated their administration of the faith that was to "free us all". A shameful legacy of coverups and anti-intellectual tyranny that lasted a thousand years.

      So I call you on your dishonest exaggerations, your irrelevant strawman arguments. And your hypocrisy: you throw around baseless talk of "dogma", merely an indefensible insult, while dredging up all kinds of dogma of your own in response. My knowledge of the Church, and its cheating history, works quite well in catching it in all kinds of interesting lies. And in turning out its worshippers, slaves to its dogma who fear the truth, and the risky, free path to it. You can offer the Church your gratitude for destroying only 90% of the culture they took over and cannibalized, but don't expect me to appreciate that kind of selfserving hypocrisy and dogma that offer only contradiction in the face of free thinking.

      BTW, I probably could have skipped this long response, and merely meditated on the credibility of a Churchlover whose .sig is "It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." - Calvin

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    22. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      "the knowlege was flooding although the speed of increasing was slowed down for whatever reason."

      No, that reason couldn't have been the Church which captured all the Grecoroman learning for itself, imprisoned in fortresses accessible only to the Pope and his minions. Those works were confiscated as the Church thought police exterminated the tradition of philosophers teaching successive generations of thinkers in the science of inquiry - many of whom demonstrated their craft in public, producing and revealing discoveries in public debate. Every place the Church laid its claws was suppressed in its traditional knowledge. From Mediterranean Grecoroman philosophy to Celtic astronomy, and all points between.

      You can sing the Church history dogma all you want, but the centuries of greatest Church power are 100% coincident with the worst repression of thinking. The Church worldview was so oversimplified, inaccurate, wrong, and fragile in the face of reality that it required constant indoctrination and defensive campaigns against freethinking "heretics" to keep its absolute power. This is perfectly clear, now that we are freer to think for ourselves, science having mostly shrugged off the old regime. So your unsupported insults have no power, however nostalgic you might be for the time when you could have depended on intimidation rather than thinking to act like an expert.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    23. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Check yourself - the instructions call for goats, and not newborns. The Autumn slaughters you mention happen every year, producing a volume of skins for parchment. There's no waiting 6 months for the goats, and the Autumn season (especially in the eastern Mediterranean, where the palimpsest was "recycled") means something like 4-5 weeks, tops. During which the labor is really a few days of scraping, and a few weeks of stirring a bath 2-3 times a day. Very clearly easier than scraping 174 pages, and the discarded work of the original transcription.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation -1
      10% Troll
      30% Insightful
      30% Overrated

      TrollMods just want to scrape my comment clean for their own dogma. I note that the breakdown omits the many mods of "Flamebait", "Underrated", "Informative", and every other mod except "Funny". At least the TrollMods are consistent hobgoblins, without a sense of humor.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    25. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I accept your concession that new parchment was more economical than laboriously destroying valuable old labor.

      And I accept your further concession. Ireland was as lawless as the rest of Medieval Europe, more plagued by burning Vikings, and home to heating fires for longer than practically all of Christendom. That such a prime candidate for these fires, which selectively destroyed records of a superior civilization while preserving the Christian writings, is the only place that those politically valuable bookburnings didn't devastate, is as improbable as aliens living on the moon. Those kinds of "miracles" don't fool anyone anymore, now that we've had a chance to read histories not written by a self-serving Church and their lightweight rhetoricians.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    26. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      This palimpsest is made of parchment, not vellum. And the new text wasn't quite "holy", it was mostly a list of instructions for how to carry out local rituals.

      The "medieval mind" created by the Church through centuries of indoctrination, purges, and thought police, did indeed create an economy and culture as you described. No wonder there was so little surplus value, and meager activity in traveling, medicine and "employment", creating such demand for the "charity" which kept the people dependent on the Church.

      The Archimedes restoration project itself manages to hint at the real story of the "coverup", though its respect for the Church keeps it from stating the clear implications for the manuscript:

      ""The Fourth Crusade had got there and instead of proceeding directly to the Holy Land, they stopped and sacked the city. The destruction of books and other historic monuments was immense, and was indeed a major disaster for the history of European culture."

      The specifics really underscore the context. The Christians tear in, destroy the complex christian/"pagan" balance in the area, and local monks purge the scary old science books in favor of safe Christian manuals. The more they uncover of this story, the more "palimpsests" look like imposed amnesia, rather than the desperation of poverty we've been led to believe.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    27. Re:Coverup by suchire · · Score: 1
      Sheesh. You're criticizing me about my sig? I suppose you're one of those people who doesn't understand the whole "tongue-in-cheek" concept of Calvin and Hobbes.

      I think for myself, showing why the dogma, that valuable texts were probably destroyed ideologically, rather than according to some false economics. I back up my attack on the dogmas with facts and logic.

      Since you don't actually have any logic or facts, I'm done arguing with you. That whole thing about the Irish being the only ones to transcribe pre-Catholic texts is actually a myth. The Spanish Inquisition happened in the 1400's, this manuscript was turned into a prayerbook a few hundred years before that. You glorified the return of the Renaissance as the "Age of Reason" and a return of science, when in actuality, it was the Age of Religion and the Inquisition. No facts, no logic, no reason. Go figure, you're a Slashdot junkie, that's pretty typical.

      --
      Such irE
    28. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I get Calvin & Hobbes. What I don't get is someone shooting off their mouth defending the Church, while joking about divine assassinations in their every post. Unless it's just the convenient mask of religion, the power of the Church, that they value, while mocking its essence. How like a hypocrite. And how like a dishonest exaggerator - yet another strawman, this time the "Spanish" Inquisition. In 1215, the Church passed laws for killing heretics and confiscating their property. Spain's famous Inquisition got really heated up a couple of hundred years later, but the burning, looting and sanctimonious coverups were underway for hundreds of years (and finally gave way to real thinking again, after hundreds of years of desperate suppression). Look even closer at the history of this Archimedes manuscript, if you've got even any private intellectual honesty: the "pagan" text was destroyed as the 4th Crusade sacked its town, burning books, making a coverup a matter of survival for many monks. Of course, you've already conceded my point that the Irish weren't the only transcribers, so your confused squeals of "I'm done arguing" are really more like an echo. People who are done arguing usually shut up, rather than spout desperate nonsense like some strange implication that the wane of the Church's power finally allowed the rise of science. But I guess that Church apologists never really die, though they're deathly boring.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    29. Re:Coverup by ezeri · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if the records of a "superior civilization" had been destroyed while the christian writings were preserved, you might have a point, but as it stands, you just inventing pretexts for you argument. The only miracle is that writings from thousands of years ago survived at all.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    30. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You stated "Yes, fires destroyed almost all of the writings from that era". And, in fact, there are very few Grecoroman writing that survived that era. Yet there are many Christian records that survived - most of which are much less valuable knowledge, like tax records, than the science they discarded. That's no "miracle", that's exactly the kind of favoritism to expect from custodians more interested in preserving a Dark Ages empire than in preserving knowledge. The "pretexts" speak for themselves.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    31. Re:Coverup by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      No real imprisonment happened... In spain the ancient knowledge flooded under islamic rule, in the very church dominated byzantine empire, the ancient knowledge was copied over and over again and made its way into the islamic countries, france got the first university outside of spain and it is no coincidence that france and italy former roman core countries were the countries which basically had the rennecances of the 12th and 14th century. Those were the ones fastest to stabilize after the downfall of Rome.

      I am telling you that the church did not lock up too many things, but after everthing went down, constant raids and battles for hundreds of years which shattered France i Italy and other ex roman countries, lots of knowledge simply was lost. Germany and northeastern Europe simply were wilderness until 700-800 with many parts being uncultivated way until the 13th century. It is true, the church wanted to lockup certain knowledge, but that is more a thing of the newer times not of the middle ages and it did not work anyway!

      It was mandatory however, that if you wanted access to the works, in the middle ages, you either had to live in parts of europe which not have been affected by the chaos between 350 and 700, or you had to be rich, to be able to buy one of the byzantine, arabic or cloister copies (and remember books were very expensive at those days, even the very rich could only afford a handful)

      And you had to had a good knowlege of latin and greece, because most of the books were never translated, including the bible.

    32. Re:Coverup by sznupi · · Score: 1

      True instructions, from the era, call for newborns. Who cares what some "hobbyist" today use?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    33. Re:Coverup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Let's see your example of 12th Century professionals requiring newborn goats for parchment. Then consider how many newborn goats died or were killed every year anyway. It doesn't really matter, anyway - parchment suitable for writing today without newborns would of course be suitable 900 years ago, too. If newborns were too rare or precious, why start destroying even more rare and precious books for parchment, when suitable adult goats were available?

      Really, you have tried so many tactics in this tread to defend the conventional wisdom of palimpsests. Every one has failed, though you have often exaggerated, ignored holes in your own argument, and generally tried to win an argument, rather than possibly learn something new. You have created weak arguments by starting from a foregone conclusion, then looking for possible ways you could be right, without regard to probability or practicality. I'm not going to convince you with reason, so I'm not going to bother anymore offering you the possibility of new insight. All I can do is suggest that you are attached to the traditional explanation for reasons that have little to do with logic, and perhaps open your eyes to your preference for dogma instead of scientific analysis. Which seems even more important to me than the provenance of palimpsests, though they also both seem to me to be related.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  35. A website with detailed information by djplurvert · · Score: 4, Informative
  36. DCMA by hhawk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly this is a violation of DCMA... ;)

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
    1. Re:DCMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the world is the DCMA?

    2. Re:DCMA by hublan · · Score: 1

      DCMA? The Digital Copyright for a Millenium Act? That's where they're heading allright...

      --
      My spoon is too big.
    3. Re:DCMA by jZnat · · Score: 2, Funny

      The "Don't Copy Manuscripts Act"?

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    4. Re:DCMA by jd · · Score: 1

      It sounds like a tribute band to Run DMC

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  37. Perspective by Silvrmane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Boy, this really puts my efforts to retrieve my old Amiga files off 10 year old 8mm Exabyte tapes in perspective. ;)

    1. Re:Perspective by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Is "Exabyte" a trade name, or did it hold an exabyte of data?

  38. I am waiting for the announcement... by barfy · · Score: 3, Funny

    - International Treasure -

    From the hidden writings of archmides to the hidden messages found in the back of euro notes. Ancient tunnels under ancient cities open up to reveal secrets nobody has seen for millenia...
    Until NOW...

    Coming soon to a theater near you,

  39. Mod Parent UP! by feronti · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not only was a lot of the knowledge preserved, much of what was lost was destroyed by secular forces. Archimedes was killed by a Roman soldier who grew impatient when the inventor didn't come quickly enough. The Library of Alexandria was burned down by the Romans.

    I must say, if the Church ever did anything right, it was preserving the works of the great masters. Sure, they may not have been complete, and they may have destroyed some other works that they disagreed with, but all in all, it was the Church that made the Renaissance possible.

    I think the grandparent poster was really just taking advantage of Slashdot's antireligious bias to score some karma.

    1. Re:Mod Parent UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that the palimpsest that was written over Archimedes was worth $2 Million, which implies that itself was a great work of art.

  40. And still no cure for cancer . . . by drsmack1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I admit I *am* curious; but I would not mind this money being spent elsewhere. The article was not totally clear, but at least some of the funding is private.

    1. Re:And still no cure for cancer . . . by AutopsyReport · · Score: 0
      Not sure how that got modded as flamebait, but the parent has a very valid point. All this money and technology could be used to fund legitimate and life-saving research.

      Just because someone values the preservation of life over mathematics on Slashdot should not warrant a mod of flamebait.

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    2. Re:And still no cure for cancer . . . by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      We are not lacking for life of human life on this
      planet. OTOH restoring whose desctruction, many
      agree, set us back hundreds of years is arguably a
      very noble goal, so as to serve as warning against
      other religious fervor and opression of the arts
      and sciences.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    3. Re:And still no cure for cancer . . . by vidarh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you're so concerned about money being spent on anything besides cancer research, the why are you here? Surely it would be better if you spent the money you spend to go online on cancer research instead, and donated your computer to charity, and spent the time you'd otherwise spend on writing comments here working for a cancer charity?

      Now, if you want to donate your time and money to cancer research, great. But don't whine because others care about other causes.

  41. Re:X-Ray Diffraction by gilkyboy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Actually, the technique you refer to in order to find out which atoms are in there works a little differently. The actual technique is called X-Ray diffraction. X-ray diffraction is done by shooting rays at the surface from different angles. If the rays are diffracted, it means that they have crossed through a plane of atoms, hit the next, then "bounce" back. The angles at which the rays are diffracted can then be used via Bragg's Law to find the interplanar spacing. This interplanar spacing yields an atomic radius which reveals which atoms we're working with.

  42. a 12th century recipe for parchment by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative
    To put this in perspective, traditonal goatskin parchment currently sells for about $17 USD a square foot. Pergamena

    Take goatskins ( 1 ) and stand them in water for a day and a night. Take them and wash them till the water runs clear ( 2 ). Take an entirely new bath and place therein old lime (calcem non recentem) and water mixing well together to for a thick cloudy liquor. Place the skins into this, folding them on the flesh side. Move them with a pole two or three times each day, leaving them for eight days (and twice as long in winter) ( 3 ). Next you must withdraw the skins and unhair them ( 4 ). Pour off the contents of the bath and repeat the process using the same quantities, placing the skins in the lime liquor, and moving them once each day over eight days as before ( 5 ). Then take them out and wash them well until the water runs quite clean ( 6 ). Place them in another bath with clean water and leave them for two days ( 7 ). Then take them out, attach the cords and tie them to the circular frame ( 8 ). Dry, then shave them with a sharp knife, after which, leave for two days out of the sun...( 9 ) moisten with water and rub the flesh side with powdered pumice ( 10 ). After two days wet it again by sprinkling with a little water and fully clean the flesh side with pumice so as to make it quite wet again ( 11 ). Then tighten up the cords, equalise the tension so that the sheet will become permanent. Once the sheets are dry, nothing further remains to be done ( 12 ). Parchment, the recipe

  43. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong.. The Answer it 42!

  44. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by RWerp · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's the GREEKS, Mr Bush.

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  45. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, no... the revealed text on the first page so far consists of:

    "F1RSTUS P0STU5"

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  46. Dear god man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want you to re-read your post, and replace all reference to religion and religious people to Homosexuality, and Homosexuals.

    Shocked by your choleric screed,

    Anonymous coward.

  47. Obligatory "Half Baked" parody by earthbound+kid · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Have you ever read Slashdot, man?"
    "Well, yeah, uh I guess..."
    "But have you ever read Slashdot -- on weed."

    1. Re:Obligatory "Half Baked" parody by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Religiously ;)

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    2. Re:Obligatory "Half Baked" parody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I hope you rot in hell. How can you escape your conscience, knowing that you are endangering your loved ones and everyone around you by indulging in your unproductive addiction?

  48. Re:NOT OFFTOPIC by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Funny
    Lord knows I've been burned by that assumption!
    ...shoulda used lube, man, shoulda used lube.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  49. I'm jealous. by dotmax · · Score: 1

    When i tried this at my accelerator, i burnt a hole through it and started a radioactive fire.

  50. If only... by Doorjam · · Score: 3, Funny

    This story wouldn't be here today if the Christian monk had erased Archimedes text using the US Government DOD 5220.22-M standard.

  51. It wasn't Archimedes' original writings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess you didn't read the part where the book in question was copied by a scribe (most likely a monk) in the 10th century from the original Greek scrolls. But that would be a case of religious people making sure that the knowledge would be kept alive and that just doesn't fit with your bias, now does it?

    1. Re:It wasn't Archimedes' original writings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the tenth century it's very likely that the scribe was in fact an islam scholar, not a christian monk. It is however quite certain that it was a christian monk that turned it into a prayerbook. To a monk praying is, of course, much more important than math, ancient or otherwise.

    2. Re:It wasn't Archimedes' original writings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe back in the Middle Ages, science was a non-factor in life to just about anyone outside of the church(i.e. Illiterate). The educated class WERE the religious scholars back then, to your shock and horror. Everyone else were too busy trying to get by in life, not trying learn to read and write.

      So it was a religious monk who preserved the parchment instead of someone who couldn't read it and would just as well feed it to the goats or throw it in their homestead hearth.

      I don't see a good reason in trying to fault the monk, the paper preserved because of his actions which otherwise would likely have been destroyed. Good on him!

  52. Electronic Beowulf also used advanced technique by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    Other advanced techniues, like use of fiber optics and non-visible parts of the spectrum, were used in Electronic Beowulf.

    (Note, Beowulf is not "English" literature any more than Ibsen is.)

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  53. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There once was a lady from Venus,
    Whose body was shaped like a..."

    "Thank you, Mr. Data!!"

  54. Translation, page two... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I have discovered a lovely little proof of my theorum about x^n + y^n = z^n, but alas, I fear to write it down because some french git will probably nick it."

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Translation, page two... by sageres · · Score: 1

      Actually, Fermat wrote regarding this: "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain. " And did I hear it right that someone from Cambridge figured it out?

    2. Re:Translation, page two... by sageres · · Score: 1

      Actually, Fermat wrote: "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain. " And correct me if I am wrong, did not someone from Cambridge proved FLT?

    3. Re:Translation, page two... by StormShaman · · Score: 1

      Yes. Andrew Wiles did.

  55. Hilbert by PerlDudeXL · · Score: 1

    He defined and solved all of the 23 Hilbert Problems in advance ;)

  56. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate proof that humanity indeed originated from Golgafrincham.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  57. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, it's a joke. Plus, this is Slashdot... acurracy doesn't matter anyway.

    *rolls logs*

  58. NOT Diffraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is X-Ray Fluorescence, NOT X-Ray Diffraction.

    Photon hits atom.
    Atom absorbs photon, promotes electron to higher energy level.
    Electron drops into core level vacancy left by promoted electron.
    A fluorescent photon is emitted (or another electron is emitted).

    This has nothing to do with any nucleus. I am a physicist. Bow to my knowledge.

  59. Permission granted by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

    Naked... well, naked walking around wasn't that odd as it is now, and the climat allows it. But it is good to have a article that seems to please the broad spectrum of /.-ers.
    Especially when the document turns out to contain UNIX source code ;-)

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  60. Re:Will it contain the complete documentation on.. by Captain+Lobotomy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps not, but there's an excellent chance it will reveal more of what little we now know of his anticipation of Integral Calculus by 1,000 years. For the Physics and Mathematics communities, this is *huge*.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  61. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Scaba · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's probably more like:

    Dear diary...I am SOOOOOOO embarrassed!!!!! OMG!!! I was like bathing today and like came up with this bitchin' idea about buoyancy and TOTALLY forgot I was like in the public bath, you know? And so I jumped up with my dork all hanging out and ran down the streets yelling like a total moron. OMG, diary O - M - F - G!!!!!!
  62. Tree by NekoXP · · Score: 1


    Did they finish anything useful before the tree hit? :)

  63. Google knows all! by tod_miller · · Score: 1, Funny
    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    1. Re:Google knows all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      life, dumbass

  64. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. You read HHGTTG.

    42. Now that's clever.

    We want to hear this joke over and over and over again, because it is so damned funny.

    Right.

  65. Re:Deciphering Technology and the Chinese Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop trolling about the chinese already. It's not as if the US doesn't torture prisoners for kicks, so don't expect any action. Especially not resulting from spamming /. with anti-chinese posts for months on end,

  66. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Spheroid2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Archimedes was Greek. Duh.

  67. Secular Romans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, those famous secular Romans, with their pantheon of gods... ahem

    1. Re:Secular Romans? by feronti · · Score: 1

      Secular as in religion had absolutely nothing to do with it. Archimedes was killed because he angered a soldier, not because of his religion. Caesar burned whatever he burned (as I mentioned in another post, it turns out that it's disputed whether or not his forces burned the Library or not) in order to gain a tactical advantage. So yes, these were secular forces. Whether or not the Romans had their own religion is irrelevant.

  68. Torrent by danila · · Score: 1

    Nova - Infinite Secrets Of Archimedes - a documentary about this (though the latest X-Ray news not included).

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  69. You laugh, but it's true... by Marvin_OScribbley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Archimedes last words were: "You may take my life, but I will take my mind" thereby indicating his retention of intellectual property rights.

    --
    I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
  70. Yes... by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    And _iron_ in the paint is what makes it possible for us to appreciate the _irony_...

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  71. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... i understand it as a joke, yes

    but its a kind of joke typical for america ... no knowledge of other world parts and mixing different cultures! go back in time to archimedes and tell him (who was a slave under romans for some time) that you think he writes in latin .... he would immediately invent mass desctruction weapons and use it before america even exists!

    *spoiler* this is some kind of joke, too :P

  72. Re:Will it contain the complete documentation on.. by evillorddan · · Score: 1

    "Three and a bit"

  73. Oh No!!!!!! by Sam+Nitzberg · · Score: 1

    It's a cookbook !!!!

  74. The message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Be sure... To drink... Your Ovaltine..."

  75. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by idonthack · · Score: 2

    No, no, no... You don't get it. If you put parenthesis it doesn't work. And you read his problem wrong too... he put NINE after SIX. See the Wikipedia Entry for an explanation on how/why the program works.

    --
    Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  76. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hey, idiot! He was multiplying SIX * NINE, not NINE * SIX. So it becomes 1 + 5 * 8 + 1 = 42. Get it? (In case you don't, look up HGTTG and 42 on goober.)

  77. OK, then by hey! · · Score: 3, Funny

    "F1RST0S P0ST05"

    Satisfied? Sheesh.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  78. RTFA by hey! · · Score: 1

    It's Stanford not SUNY.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think my GP was referring to the legend that Archimedes ran around naked in Syracuse, Sicily, shouting "Eureka!" when he had realized in the bathtub his law of displacement.

    2. Re:RTFA by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yes; I was making a stupid joke. Hope nobody took offense.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  79. Update! Archimedes' Text fully revealed! by spiderworm · · Score: 2, Funny

    butter bread milk grapes papyrus Math for Dummies dish soap

  80. The more things change the more they stay the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in Kansas....

    From TFA, "In a time of such political upheaval, advanced mathematical treatises by Archimedes were not in great demand. Far more urgent was the need for Christian texts, which would help monks and priests carry out religious services for the salvation of souls."

  81. At the very least... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...Christians have been consistent throughout the ages. Squashing the advancement of our knowledge about the world time and time again. Can you imagine if Bush was in the White House during the 50s and 60s. Instead of giving the American people an amazing goal to reach, he'd have arrested scientist who were attempting to disprove the existence of the firmament!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:At the very least... by Harish+Rallapali · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA.

      The article plainly states that the parchment was reused because parchments were hard to come by and archimedes' work wasn't in demand. It's the simple issue of supply and demand and a monk that made a rather careless mistake, not some evil church cabal trying to quash all knowledge.

      Christians, as stupid as they are sometimes, don't have anything against mathematics anyways.

    2. Re:At the very least... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 0, Troll

      Was knowlege squashed? Yes.

      Was it done by a Christian? Yes.

      Need I say more? Nope.

      What are you bitching about?! I have no idea.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    3. Re:At the very least... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually you mix a lot of things up... Lots of things were lost in the downfall of the western roman empire, but the monks of the middle ages, over here in Europe are well regarded as keepers and safers of the knowlegde and teachers of the incoming peoples which were setteling on ex roman soil. Here are cloisters in the area where I live, where they have a school tradition going back more than 1500 years and the libraries which were built over time are equally impressive, although books were luxury. But one of the main works ever monk had to do, was to copy the books by hand so that the work get preserved. The monks back then simply know, knowlegde can only be preserved by constant copying (unless our business bastards nowadays who would sell the entire human knowlege for the next dime if they could)

      What you are referring to is stuff like the index and bookburnings, those things as well as the witch burnings never happened in the middle ages, those things are much closer to our age.

    4. Re:At the very least... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      So the invading hordes of barbarians which brought down the Roman Empire had nothing to do with lost records? I did not realize those barbarians were christians. Do tell?

      Are you saying all the ancient works we have today preserved themselves?

      Do you know that "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction?

      Since you have no idea, why did you feel the need to post here?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    5. Re:At the very least... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Who's talking about barbarians?! I'm not. I'm talking about the original posting dealing with a CHRISTIAN destroying KNOWLEDGE. Something CHRISTIANS have been doing since their formation.

      Are Christians the only group to destroy knowledge? Nope. Did I ever say that in your wildest dreams? Nope.

      Once again, every thing I've said is irrefutably true, so what are you bitching about? I have no idea.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  82. Re:Yay for the church! by AutopsyReport · · Score: 0, Troll

    Thanks for reminding me that the Church is a single man.

    --

    For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

  83. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

    Since Archimedes was Greek and not Roman, that should be: "F1RSTOS P0STO5"

    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
  84. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    And even if he WAS Roman, it would be: "F1RSTVS P0STV5" -- the letter U is relatively modern invention (as is J). More recent, in fact, than the street names in Washington, DC.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  85. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
    If women can't find you handsome, they should at least find you handsome.

    OK, I give up. No doubt I'm missing the obvious, but I can't figure it out.

  86. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Jazu · · Score: 1

    I think he'd just say ""

    --
    My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  87. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Jazu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think he'd just wonder what the hell language you were speaking.

    --
    My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  88. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is some kind of joke

    You apparently forgot, or never learned, that a joke just isn't a joke without the funny. Typical of an America-bashing AC - not nearly as smart as you think you are.

  89. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by egott · · Score: 1

    Not that /. is supposed to make sense or anything, but shouldn't the parent post be moderated "funny" rather than "interesting"?

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people: Those that understand ternary; those that don't; and those that don't care.
  90. I've met Archimedes Plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've met Archimedes Plutonium, he was one of the resident kooks while I was at Dartmouth. He'd spend hours in Kiewit (the computer center) with his shiny silver briefcase, tapping out his wacko theories on the Indys in the public cluster. Not surprisingly, he was paranoid about everything. He embarassed the school, and they finally got rid of him (he was kitchen staff, of all things).

  91. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  92. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
    but its a kind of joke typical for america ... no knowledge of other world parts and mixing different cultures! go back in time to archimedes and tell him (who was a slave under romans for some time) that you think he writes in latin

    OK genius, let's hear your super-enlightened, non-american rendition of the joke. Latin is generally the only ancient language well known enough that one can appropriate a couple word endings, apply them to modern language, and still get the point across. Yes, it would have been more accurate if he'd had Archimedes writing ancient greek, you pedantic troll, but due to lack of greek characters on our keyboards, and the fact that almost nobody would be able to read it, it would no longer be an effective joke because no one would get it.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  93. this is fantastic!!!! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    this will no doubt change math, at least in a historical sense.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  94. WTF, dude by John+Miles · · Score: 1

    The Library of Alexandria was burned down by the Romans.

    The Library of Alexandria was torched by Moslems under the command of Caliph Omar. His reasoning was, "To the extent knowledge is necessary, it is in the holy Quran. To the extent it is not necessary, it is blasphemy."

    Romans?!?? Sheesh. You must be taking faith-based history, or something.

    --
    Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    1. Re:WTF, dude by feronti · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's disputed. It all depends on who the historian disliked the most... Plutarch disliked Caesar, Gibbons disliked Christianity (and blamed Theophilus, the Patriarch of Alexandria), and Hebraeus hated the Moslems (and so blamed Omar). I was unaware of the dispute, having only heard the story of Caesar, so I thank you for your attempt at correcting me. From the reading I did writing this reply, I think it's most likely that none of these culprits single-handedly destroyed the Library, and that they all had a hand in the crime.

      Check here, here, and here for three different perspectives on who did it.

      But my actual point stands... the Christian Church and the Moslems owe us just as great a debt for what they saved of the ancients' wisdom as they are responsible for what they destroyed.

    2. Re:WTF, dude by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      But my actual point stands... the Christian Church and the Moslems owe us just as great a debt for what they saved of the ancients' wisdom as they are responsible for what they destroyed.

      Yeah, it's kind of interesting to see how the different political and philosophical standard-bearers blamed their own personal enemies for the destruction of the Library.

      I was about to post something snippy to the effect of, "Fine, whatever, atheists don't burn libraries," but then remembered the Soviets, who didn't just burn their libraries but went door-to-door hunting down the librarians.

      People who suck will do so regardless of religion or lack thereof.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    3. Re:WTF, dude by feronti · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My real point was the fact that religion had just as much to do with the preservation of knowledge as it did with its destruction.

      I think it's interesting that even though I consider myself agnostic, to read a lot of my posts here recently, you'd think I was a true believer. It's a shame that so many people here are willing to through out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to religion... it seems the antireligious faction here on Slashdot are just as closed minded as the religious fanatics they oppose. Sad, really.

    4. Re:WTF, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember this one?

      "Open Source, Closed Minds. We are Slashdot."

  95. Just Like Ancient COBOL Scripts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A lot of monks basically spent their lives copying and recopying texts. There wasn't anything else to do with them, really. Without them, a lot more information would have been lost.

    Just like mainframe COBOL code today. Sometime in the distant future, software monks will study old COBOL Y2K program listings, hoping to glean some knowledge of the algorithms that control how their business runs.

  96. Re:Will it contain the complete documentation on.. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Closer to 1900 years, from 212 BCE to the seventeenth century.

  97. Re:Will it contain the complete documentation on.. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Taking a bit as one eighth (two bits is a quarter), that would give an approximation of 3.125. Not as accurate as the 22/7 (3.142857. . . . ) from Archimedes.

  98. Dark Ages, Renaissance by antizeus · · Score: 2, Informative
    These "dark ages" you speak of saw the flourishing of art and literature, the invention of many things we take for granted, and, among other things, the first attempts to translate scientific texts into the language of the common people (rather than classical Latin, Greek, or Arabic, none of which were ever similar to any spoken dialect)
    It seems that you are confusing the Dark Ages (roughly 500-1000 CE) with the Renaissance (roughly 1300-1500 CE). The monk erased the text during the former, and that cool stuff you mentioned happened during the latter. Good job getting modded up, though.
    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  99. According to the documentary... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The program appeared on PBS as a Nova special and it was clear that scholars were stunned to find that Archimedes devised a simple form of integral calculus in an attempt to find the area under a curve, something that was unknown prior to the investigation of the parchment.

    Archimedes treatises on levers, the value of PI, and his other mathematical discoveries have been known to us for centuries and I was simply listing off his notable achievements.

    1. Re:According to the documentary... by coopex · · Score: 0

      They couldn't have been very intelligent scholars if they were stunned by his using a simple form of integral calculus, it's well documented how he used a 2 96 sided polygons with a circle inscribed and circumscribed to give upper and lower bounds for pi, 3.1429 to 3.1408, basically discovering the concept of limits, a crucial step to calculs.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/pi.html

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    2. Re:According to the documentary... by idonthack · · Score: 1

      ...it was clear that scholars were stunned to find that Archimedes devised a simple form of integral calculus in an attempt to find the area under a curve, something that was unknown prior to the investigation of the parchment.

      I don't know about that, I did a report on Archimedes in school a few years ago and I remember reading about it. ...I was simply listing off his notable achievements.

      Okay, sorry then - but it did look like you meant it came from the parchment.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  100. Physics behind the technique by cocoamix · · Score: 3, Informative

    The technique being used sounds like an Electron Probe, or Wavelength Dispersive Spectroscopy. Here is a nice Java application demonstrating Bragg's Law, on which the techniques are based.

  101. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by spyroux · · Score: 1

    Futhermore, I'm not sure everyone could understand ancient english :-D

  102. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the FSCK modded this insightful?

  103. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1

    My mother always said "if you don't have anything funny to say, don't say anything at all".

  104. In other news by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Scientists in the year 3010 finally managed to unencrypt the DVDs from 2008 which the keys were lost in the great Bush Fires of 2020...

    Nothing new was revealed, it was the same junk which has been unencrypted since scientists managed to rebreak the CSS key in 2989 which also was lost over time.

    But it gave a good insight of the primitivity of the archaic pre Bush Fire cultures, which relied on something stamped on paper and they even destroyed sucessively their whole living base for gaining more of the paper. All in all the late pre Bush fire cultures now that scientists gained insight never reached the standards of the ones 20-30 years earlier, it is still undecided yet why this happened, because words like share holder value, or buy mania have not yet been deciphered by the language experts, but one thing is for sure, those people were primitive.

    It is still undecided how such a cultural downfall after the heydeys of greece could happen 2500 years later, with cultural standards close to cavemen.

  105. Know why they are doing this PR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    SSRL and all the other big synchrotrons in the US are facing cuts in funding.

    These facilities are truly amazing and used by many different types of scientists to do all sorts of things (protein structures are what I use them for).

    They are asking all of their users to pump their respective PR so that they can tell the Feds why they need the funding they do.

    SSRL has been out for a fews days due to a tree falling on a power line.. :(

  106. Pretty much every religion is the "true" one by vlad_petric · · Score: 1

    Although some of them (such as the Sikh religion) consider that people of different religions can also achieve "transcendence"

    --

    The Raven

  107. But then he went on to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CREATION IS CUBIC, but you are educated singularity stupid by academic bastards. Athens 1 day time is evil. I know that you possess the mind to think that there are 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single Earth rotation, I think that you are just evil. Can you explain the 4 days rather than the 1 day taught? If not, you are truely stupid. To ignore the 4 days, is evil.

    Poor smartie-PANTS greek-pingwhoop! was reverseAHEAD of his time and in front of it simoultaneousnessly, you uneducated stupids.

  108. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all Greek to me!

  109. Dear diary? You mean he didn't blog? by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    ... another amazing fact discovered by the linear accelerator.

  110. Romansque art? by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    If you know any of your art history, you should be aware that there was very little Roman in Romanesque art. The reason that period is called Romanesque is because there was some superficial similarities in the architecture of cathedrals, but that's about it. Compared with Roman arts, Romansque period is rather inferior.

    1. Re:Romansque art? by suchire · · Score: 1
      I think there was quite a bit more than superficial resemblence. Round arches, Romanesque basilica-style cathedrals, barral vaults, frescoes, acanthus leaf motifs, and monumental sculptures as parts of architecture were all from Roman styles. Roman models were quite well-known and studied, and other Grecoroman styles came in with a Byzantine twist, such as realistic modeling of human forms under drapery and more Hellenistic-era style emotion and drama. Influences like the Roman aqueducts are clearly visible in the various cathedrals during that time.

      My point in invoking the Romanesque was that the church didn't destroy the Grecoroman tradition. Rather, the tradition was lost when the empire fell, and it slowly seeped back in, mostly due to the help of the Church and the aristocracy. The parts that were lost were mostly due to raids, fires, wars, and general rot and lack of care.

      --
      Such irE
  111. i'm not a script, ggrefkf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the level of mathematics required to read the parchment is contained in the parchment.

  112. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by AndreyF · · Score: 1

    same here

  113. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

    Thanks for pointing this out. That's what happens when you type your sigs while holding a conversation with the people in the office at the same time.

    It should read:

    "If women can't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy".

    I'll try to fix it as soon as I stop getting the "Eror 503 service unavailable" message.

    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
  114. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1
    Your comment made me check more in depth and it turns out it should read:
    If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

    And from the same people we get the man's prayer:

    I'm a man...
    But I can change...
    If I have to...
    I guess.
    Hopefully many fans of duck tape (aka duct tape, aka gaff tape, aka 100 mph tape, aka............) will recognize them.
    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
  115. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by gcatullus · · Score: 1

    Archimedes DID invent weapons of mass distruction, or at least as massive as you could get with then current technology. But I don't think he would have given a flying trireme about whether someone thought he spoke Latin or Greek.

  116. Transliterating now by gcatullus · · Score: 1

    What about "e^n arke o'logos" which is usually translated as "In the beginning was the Word." I would think that THIS would have been the original first post

  117. Particle Archaeology by derdracle · · Score: 1

    After spending several hours stacking dirty lead bricks, breathing lead dust, and being exposed to radioactive materials, in the hot and arid beamline at SLAC; perhaps a new breed of archaeologist will be born that more resembles the likes of particle physicists. Ever wondered why particle physicists are always irate, short and balding men who drive beat up subarus? Fortunately after being mutated, and getting a PhD, they always have graduate student slaves to carry on the tradition while they kick back and sip a coke they smuggled into the beamline.

  118. Re:Translating now... hold on.... by hosecoat · · Score: 1

    not to mention the fact that the subject says TRANSLATING.
    or if you prefer babelfish greek (heres the tags):
    &#947;&#953;&#945; &#957;&#945; &#956;&#951;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#945;&#966;&#941;&#961;&#949;&#953; &#964;&#959; &#947;&#949;&#947;&#959;&#957;&#972;&#962; &#972;&#964;&#953; &#964;&#959; &#952;&#941;&#956;&#945; &#955;&#941;&#949;&#953; &#964;&#951; &#924;&#917;&#932;&#913;&#934;&#929;&#913;&#931;&# 919;.