Slashdot Mirror


Eureka! Archimedes Revealed

pin_gween writes "The Mercury News has an AP wire that shows science uncovering history. 800 years ago a monk scrubbed the text off a goatskin parchment to write prayers. Nothing unusual there, except the parchment contained writings from a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest. Now scientists are using x-rays, generated by a particle accelerator, to cause tiny amounts of iron left by the original ink to glow without harming the delicate goatskin parchment. It takes 12 hours to scan one page, then the information is posted online."

244 comments

  1. Too cool! by lisany · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Will overlook the Christian Monk scrubbing scientific things away for religion to say this is really cool. I wonder how many other documents were similarly reused for $whatever. Wonder what it all says...

    1. Re:Too cool! by thePig · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Check out the article -
      It was probably the only reason we got these writings in our hand.
      If it was just the text of archimedes, then it would have been destroyed during the dark ages...
      Since it was a prayer book, nobody dared, and now we have the data.

      Every action has consequences, and some of them are inconcieveable

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    2. Re:Too cool! by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would say to put any Anti-Religious Zealotry aside, and think about it this way. How many files have you deleted from your hard-drive that perhaps in a couple hundred years would allow archeologist to get better insight on your generation, or the previous ones. Parchment was not as cheap as it was today. It took considerable amount of work just to create it, and Rubbing out the Old stuff for the New stuff seems like best situation, for the times. This period was well in the dark ages, saving old stuff wasn't the goal or even seemed that valuable. And besides as far as most were concerned at the time, this is old stuff from a dead civilization, make room for our new more modern method.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Too cool! by daniil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And besides as far as most were concerned at the time, this is old stuff from a dead civilization, make room for our new more modern method.

      More likely, he simply didn't understand what was written there. The monks might have been better educated than most of the other folks, yet not that many of them knew Greek. Things get forgotten pretty fast if noone understands them.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    4. Re:Too cool! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      "If it was just the text of archimedes, then it would have been destroyed during the dark ages..."

      The Dark Ages period is generally agreed to be 500 C.E. to 1000 C.E.. This copy of the text of Archimedes was erased, cut up, and written over in the 1200s. The original (or a copy of it) had survived most of the dark ages, until the most recent copy was made.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Too cool! by DingerX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, the "monk" wrote in Greek, in Constantinople. Whether it actually was a "monk", or just a scribe, or a priest, who scrubbed and copied that thing, is a different story. Anyway, 1229 Constantinople was a pretty rough place, and the Greek clergy wouldn't have been terribly rich; they've never been very interested in pagan Greek literature in the Eastern Church anyway. Now, in Paris, at the same time, there are plenty of priests, monks and friars who would be very eager to see what that text said (at least in translation). And there were active centers of Greek-Latin and Arabic-Latin translation of scientific texts at the time, especially in Spain.

    6. Re:Too cool! by Stephen+Maturin · · Score: 0, Troll

      "inconcieveable"
      You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

      --
      Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
      -- Cicero
    7. Re:Too cool! by bitt3n · · Score: 2, Funny
      Since it was a prayer book, nobody dared, and now we have the data.

      Yet again religion is all that protects the march of scientific progress from obliteration at the hands of destructive ignorance.

    8. Re:Too cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many files have you deleted from your hard-drive that perhaps in a couple hundred years would allow archeologist to get better insight on your generation...?

      Pfeh! What did future generations ever do for me? And what are they going to learn from porn that was so bad I actually deleted it?

    9. Re:Too cool! by daniil · · Score: 1

      Meh. I knew I should've RTFA before posting a comment. Now that I have, I almost regret posting it.

      Anyway, I still think the writings of Archimedes were erased from ignorance (ie they simply didn't care about Archimedes), not because someone found that it didn't conform with his world view.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    10. Re:Too cool! by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      Aside from an incorrect spelling, what was wrong with his use of "inconceivable"? The dictionary defines it as "So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible" and the thesaurus lists "unimaginable" and "unthinkable" as synonyms. We also have the antonyms "fathomable" and "likely", which means pretty much exactly the opposite of the grand-parents intended meaning.

      So, do you have anything to say for yourself, or do you just enjoy being mean on /.?

    11. Re:Too cool! by bcwright · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One thing to keep in mind is that just because this palimpset is the only copy that we know about today, doesn't mean that there weren't other copies extant at the time it was reused; and at the time it was probably not such a unique text. Remember that Constantinople (now Istanbul) had just been sacked in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and things were still quite chaotic. At that time (1229) the city would still have been controlled by the Crusaders (it was not retaken by the Byzantines until 1261). In addition the city was sacked again in 1453 when it was conquered by the Turks, after which the Church and Byzantine civilization in general underwent systematic persecution and suppression. All of these disruptions have caused the loss of huge numbers of texts.

      The Archimedes manuscript is not the only manuscript reused to make the prayer book - there are several other texts that were also used, including some others which are now also our only remaining copies. These include both pagan writers and other Christian texts. Again, we have little reason to think that any of these would have been considered particularly unique at the time.

      Events have not been kind to ancient manuscripts generally; what we have left today is only a relatively small sampling of what was originally a vast ancient literature. The Church has often been blamed, and in the case of pagan religious texts there may be some justice in the charge; but what have doubtless been much bigger culprits for the bulk of the destruction have been marauding armies, fires, floods, and simply the ravages of time as old manuscripts decay without having been copied.

    12. Re:Too cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      files deleted from the hard disk .. are you talking about the porn collection?

    13. Re:Too cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, do you have anything to say for yourself, or do you just enjoy being mean on /.?

      Turn in your geek card. It's a quote from "The Princess Bride".

    14. Re:Too cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scarcity of writing material could have lead to it being overwritten. When the BBC went looking for TV programmes from the early sixties they discovered that many were taped over because tape was so dear then that that was the way they cut down on expenses.

    15. Re:Too cool! by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word...

      --
      Favorite quote: "
    16. Re:Too cool! by bcwright · · Score: 1
      Yet again religion is all that protects the march of scientific progress from obliteration at the hands of destructive ignorance.

      The fact is that the barbarians are always at the gates. Civilization has never been more than one generation away from a potential new Dark Age, and often less when faced with angry and ignorant - but well-armed - mobs.

    17. Re:Too cool! by Jahz · · Score: 2, Informative
      Will overlook the Christian Monk scrubbing scientific things away for religion to say this is really cool. I wonder how many other documents were similarly reused for $whatever. Wonder what it all says...

      Actually paper was not always as plentiful as it is now. In fact, as recently as the 1800's, paper was a valuable commodity. (reference: history of paper) It's unfortunate, but likely, that countless important works have been erased and resued. Heck, even most of Leonardo DiVinici paintings were created on reused canvases.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
    18. Re:Too cool! by stevesliva · · Score: 1
      More likely, he simply didn't understand what was written there. ... Things get forgotten pretty fast if noone understands them.
      The irony is that this mathematics text is interesting only as for a historical insight into the development of math. Even if this monk living in a war zone cared about geometry, did he also care about the history of geometry?
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    19. Re:Too cool! by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      It was probably the only reason we got these writings in our hand.

      That doesn't make it a good thing to scrub off important science and overwrite it with religious texts nor does it redeem what happened --- it only makes it accidentally good in this particular case.

    20. Re:Too cool! by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, crap, I'm an idiot. I just thought it was some strange /. meme. I apologise, I'm terribly sorry.

    21. Re:Too cool! by DingerX · · Score: 2, Informative

      parchment is expensive, and the economy of Constantinople 1229 was pretty bad. Most of the Greek aristocracy had relocated, the Latin Emperor had never been strong, but now was so ineffective, they were having trouble appointing people to do it, and in a few years the "Empire" would be reduced to the town of Constantinople itself. Add to that the Greek Patriarchs and a good deal of the bishops (but not all) had left Latin-dominated areas and were with the "Empire in Exiile", and you've got a seriously impoverished Greek clergy.

    22. Re:Too cool! by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

      In other words, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

      --
      Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    23. Re:Too cool! by Chacham · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remember that Constantinople (now Istanbul)

      Let me get this straight, Istanbul was Constantinople? So, now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople?
      I guess its been a long time gone, when they used Constantinople. Hmm... Why did Constantinople get the works? I know i shouldn't ask since it's probably nobody's business but the Turks.

    24. Re:Too cool! by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      but what have doubtless been much bigger culprits for the bulk of the destruction have been marauding armies, fires, floods, and simply the ravages of time as old manuscripts decay without having been copied.

      And at least two of the reasons you state are more than likely to have been instigated by the church...

      Bob

    25. Re:Too cool! by atezun · · Score: 1

      So would it have been somehow less disgraceful if someone erased a sacred religous text to scribble down an arithmetic problem?

    26. Re:Too cool! by dhanes · · Score: 1
      Thanx! Now I can't get that damn song out of my head.

      *Shakes Fist*

      --
      Wait, What?
    27. Re:Too cool! by Chacham · · Score: 1

      We now share our pain! :)

    28. Re:Too cool! by agendi · · Score: 1

      How do we know that this copy was actually correct? Would it not be possible that one of the reasons why it was scrapped clean is that it was poorly copied/translated or simply one of many copies floating about at the time and there were other uses for the space?

      --
      I just can't be bothered.
    29. Re:Too cool! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Don't get grumpy, just make a little birdhouse in your soul.

  2. First Post... (Read on) by jfinke · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, in other words, you could say that Archimedes had the first post. :) Sorry, could not resist.

    1. Re:First Post... (Read on) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      yeah, but it was modded down by a christian monk...

    2. Re:First Post... (Read on) by El+Torico · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and now it was just modded up by Stanford University.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    3. Re:First Post... (Read on) by Aeamarth · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...until some of us metamoderate them!

    4. Re:First Post... (Read on) by torpor · · Score: 1

      i think you mean it was threadjacked by the christian monk..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  3. 12 hours?! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    But I want it NOW!!

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:12 hours?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But I want it NOW!!


      At least you can't say it's old news. Oh wait...

    2. Re:12 hours?! by fbjon · · Score: 1
      the information is posted online.
      In other news: A recent server fire destroyed several-thousand-year old documents.
      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  4. Eureka! by colonslashslash · · Score: 5, Funny
    It is the most difficult imaging challenge on any medieval document because the book is in such terrible condition.


    Well, that, and the fact that some monk dude scrawled his love letters to god all over the bloody text!

    --
    She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
    1. Re:Eureka! by dmccarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's thanks to those "love letters to God" you disdain that the palimpset survived at all.

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
    2. Re:Eureka! by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think you're missing the point. We don't NEED the writings now. We already understand calculus. It was needed in Archimedes times. It's because of those ignorant monks who didn't care for "worldly knowledge" and instead preffered to write the same old love letters to invisible men that mathematics was set back 2000 years.

    3. Re:Eureka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time the monk got around to recycling the parchment, mathematics and natural philsophy had been in serious decline for 1000 years. The Hellenistic world of the third century BC was in the midst of a scientific revolution that could have been every bit as profound as early modern Europe's. It was stifled under the boot of the Roman legionnaire. If necessity is the mother of invention, liberty is the midwife.

    4. Re:Eureka! by whoop · · Score: 1

      Or mathematics progressed exactly as God intended it to...

    5. Re:Eureka! by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2, Funny

      God created everything knowing full well what it would do, so anything that happens is as God intended. It's rather moot.

    6. Re:Eureka! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Well, that, and the fact that some monk dude scrawled his love letters to god all over the bloody text!

      Because it was a text of crackpot science ideas like global warming, stem cell research, and evolution. It had to be purified. --Red Stater

    7. Re:Eureka! by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't the whole point of "sinning", that sometimes through Free Will people do things that God would have preferred them to do otherwise, or not do at all? In which case, you have no idea whether God wanted that monk to destroy mathematical knowledge or not, and it's only the deadly sin of Pride that makes you think you understand God's plans regarding this issue.

    8. Re:Eureka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh what a troll!

      Y'know, if you're going to push the whole omnipotent and omniscient deity business, you'll have to deal with the existence of evil in the world.
      Any evil is because God wanted it.

      What a fucker that God guy must be.

      Oh, and it directly contradicts the doctrine of free will, which is at the seat of Judeochristian mythology.

      Something tells me you should go back and learn a bit more about your superstitions. You've got some glaring paradoxes that aren't resolving themselves.

    9. Re:Eureka! by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. There is a monk in every monkey after all...

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    10. Re:Eureka! by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 1

      LOL

      Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you were the one with the contradiction on your hands and that you are the one who needs to recheck his axioms to resolve it? Like, I don't know "Gee, maybe this poster doesn't beleive in this superstitious non-sense."

    11. Re:Eureka! by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, also look up "Calvinism" and you'll find that free will isn't as deeply ingrained into Judeo-Christian mythology as you'd like to think.

    12. Re:Eureka! by cmarkn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Praising the Church for preserving ancient knowledges is like praising Hitler for preserving a few Jews. The destruction that the palimpset survived was the intentional destruction of ancient writing by the Church. It is completely ridiculous that the Church gets so much credit for saving the few classics that we have by over-writing them, which was meant as destruction, instead of any blame for the greater mass that were lost forever when the Church burned them. Anything from the ancients that survived the Dark Ages was not because the Church preserved them, but simply because they failed to complete their plan to burn all the ancient books, just as Hitler failed to complete his plan to burn all the European Jews.

      Screw Godwin's Law. This is one of those rare times when the comparison is appropriate.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
  5. This was on NPR last week by jerkmark · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Pain is God trying to be funny. That's how out of touch It is. -- Jeff Lint
    1. Re:This was on NPR last week by bhmit1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Nova was talking about it back in 2003: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/
      Of course they hadn't started with the X-Rays at that point.

    2. Re:This was on NPR last week by siwelwerd · · Score: 1

      Yep, that article more clearly states that they really just stumbled upon this idea--Bergmann was using the technique to look at iron levels in spinach leaves, and just by chance read an article about the Archimedes palimpset and thought the same technique could be used. I think in the NPR interview he said his mother gave him the article--now how's that for random chance?

  6. Text read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    4 Carrots
    2 Pints of milk
    Brithday card for aunt Mavis

    1. Re:Text read by William_Lee · · Score: 1
      More likely it read something like this ;-)

      pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels; bring home for Emma

    2. Re:Text read by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

      I would mod you up, but my points were all eaten by a hungry shark.

    3. Re:Text read by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      We're supposed to rebuild a civilization out of the ashes from THAT?

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    4. Re:Text read by bmo · · Score: 1

      "pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels; bring home for Emma"

      Best. Book. Evah.

      --
      BMO - tents mended here

    5. Re: Text read by bruins01 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it read: Buy groceries Kill self Obscure reference?

    6. Re:Text read by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I never understood the "bring home for Emma" part. Did he think he might mistakenly do something else with the food?

  7. What if they found goatse on the goat skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like an intarweb version of the turin shroud.

  8. New stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I heard an interview with one of the scientists on the CBC. He said that there was possibly some new stuff that we didn't know about. In particular, there seems to be a section which tries to figure out how many different ways there are to solve a problem. So it seems that Archimedes was wondering about combinotorics.

  9. Not quite perfect by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although this is a cool discovery, it would have been cooler if the lost writings were by a Greek intellectual whom we have less information about, say Heraclitus. Well, there is always the possibility that this technique could be used to recover other "lost" texts.

    1. Re:Not quite perfect by Unknown_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      My last girlfriend complained that I didn't know enough about Heraclitus and that's why she was leaving. I didn't realize she knew that much about ancient greeks. I guess she studied Heraclitus a lot on her own when I fell asleep.

    2. Re:Not quite perfect by m000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The palimpsest includes writings from authors other than Archimedes, though he is by far the best-represented.

      Another book they used, we now know, contained works by the 4th century B.C. Attic Orator Hyperides. Prior to the discovery of the Hyperides text in the manuscript, this orator was only known from papyrus fragments and from quotations of his work by other authors. The Palimpsest, however, contains 10 pages of Hyperides text.

      Yet further books were used to make up the Palimpsest. Six folios come fron a Neoplatonic philosophical text that has yet to be identified; four folios come from a liturgical book, and twelfve further pages come from two different books, the text of which has yet to be deciphered.

      source

    3. Re:Not quite perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :)

      (to bad that likely went over the head of most slashdotters)

    4. Re:Not quite perfect by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      More like she was getting tutored in Greek on the side.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:Not quite perfect by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1

      Ouch - or on her stomach!

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    6. Re:Not quite perfect by yourockmyfaceoff · · Score: 1

      Actually the palimpsest contains several documents besides the work of Archimedes. Most notable are transcripts of speeches by the orator Hyperides, no copies of which are known to exist anywhere else. Most recently these guys uncovered a speech about a battle in which the young Alexander the Great partcipated.

  10. Um, look up palimpsest... by frequnkn · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...except the parchment contained writings from a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest.

    The object in question IS the palimpsest, not the text hidden on it. At least NPR got that much right :-)

  11. Too cool!-scarcity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I rather doubt he did it because he had anything against science. But because back then materials were a bit scarcer than our modern 'go to the store' times of plenty.

    1. Re:Too cool!-scarcity. by halivar · · Score: 1

      Troo dat.

      During the Renaissance, a number of works by "great" artists (as they are recognized now) had their works "re-used" for the canvas. Before fairly modern times, art mediums were very expesive, and not easy to come by. More often than not, you had to reuse what you had.

      Think of it as mideval recycling.

  12. So you'll know ... by Selanit · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a fairly obscure term, so most non-specialists don't know it. A "palimpsest" is a piece of parchment that has been re-used. This particular palimpsest contains stuff by Archimedes; and so it is called "the Archimedes Palimpsest." It is not "a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest," it is THE Archimedes palimpsest.

    1. Re:So you'll know ... by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      But all of us ex-D&D'ers are well familiar with term :D

    2. Re:So you'll know ... by ajs · · Score: 1

      In other words palimpsest

    3. Re:So you'll know ... by whoop · · Score: 1

      Ah thanks. I've been looking for just that because I have it from a reliable source that the population of ancient palimpsests has tripled in the last six months.

    4. Re:So you'll know ... by Sentri · · Score: 1

      Im not familiar with this concept of "ex-D&D'ers"

      Once you have partaken of the fruit, the taint never leaves you

      --
      Can't we all just get along
    5. Re:So you'll know ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obscure?! That's the stuff of pub quizzes. You're American, 'eh?

    6. Re:So you'll know ... by Kanasta · · Score: 1

      Surely Archimedes used more than one in his life, thus it is not "THE Archimedes palimpsest", but simply "a Archimedes palimpsest".

  13. Regressive Upgrade by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't wait to see what the first, original layer of Archimedes' Palimpsest, the one Archimedes erased for blanks, contained. Maybe we'll have to backdate some of that "Archimedean" knowledge to someone else.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  14. Library Studies to the rescue by schabot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Finally I can use my LIS nerdiness on slashdot, bastion of computer, science, and math nerds.

    The summary says "Nothing unusual there, except the parchment contained writings from a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest," using the term palimpsest incorrectly. By calling it "a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest," the summary implies that Archimedes wrote something--a Palimpsest--which was then copied and found on this random scrap of parchment.

    In actuality, a palimpsest is a parchment already inscribed where the original ink was scraped off for reuse. Parchment, being the skin of a calf, sheep or goat, was in the Middle Ages very expensive (there is an argument that the Gutenberg revolution was fuelled more by cheap paper then by the printing press, but I digress). It was not discarded, but often reused by monks in Medieval scriptoria.

    Many works from antiquity, once thought lost, are found serendipitously through palimpsest, many of them pagan works overwritten in favour of Christian ones. So, what we have found is a palimpsest of a manuscript copy of Archimedes, not a copy of Archimedes' palimpsest

    1. Re:Library Studies to the rescue by frequnkn · · Score: 1

      Damn it, I just said that ! :-)

  15. at least he didn't use it for other things by Unknown_monkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I mean, we're lucky that he wrote on it. How many ancient writings could we find if someone will look in that monastery's latrine? I bet a lot of ancient texts went to clean some holy man's impurities. After all, it's just pagan writings. Maybe this is the source of the Muslim fear of the Koran being placed on/in toilets?

    1. Re:at least he didn't use it for other things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parchment is made out of hide, not paper.

    2. Re:at least he didn't use it for other things by vidarh · · Score: 1

      As someone else has pointed out, they used hide not paper, but also the reason why they kept writing over old texts like this was because it was extremely expensive (one dead animal didn't exactly give that many pages...) and so everything was reused over and over again. Considering the cost I think anyone daring to use it for any other purpose than intended would find themselves in severe trouble very quickly.

  16. Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a kid.. by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, bribery and corruption
    are common, children no longer obey their parents and the end of the
    world is evidently approaching." --Archimedes goatskin, 210 B.C.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. Isn't this against the DMCA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Aren't they circumventing a technological protection system? And this particle accelerator is a "technological device that facilitates the circumvention of access control or copy controls". And then, in typical warez fashion, the pirated content is then disseminated on teh evil intarweb!

    I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! That otherwise reputable scientists could be party to such a heinous act - oh the horror! The black helicopters must be dispatched after these miscreants forthwith!

  18. Too cool!-Mirror, mirror on the wall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's go for a (+5:insightful). How come one of the first posts to this story is a (Religion verses science) instead of a (historic practicality versus wasteful pride)? That's more insightful because the past is the past and doesn't affect me as much as say modern mores and behaviours.

  19. Electron bombardment by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny
    It takes 12 hours to scan one page, then the information is posted online.
    Then the information is bombarded with /. access requests.
    1. Re:Electron bombardment by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      It took 12 hours for the scientists to get it, it should also take 12 hours for the surfers! :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Electron bombardment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out the deleted text is the URL to goatsex...

    3. Re:Electron bombardment by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's gonna take those /. readers more than 12 hours to decode one of those pages, even those of us that are fluent readers of classical Greek. Did you take a look at them? I mean, I did manage to pick out a couple of recognizable words. But I can hardly imagine how much work it'll still take to get proper transcriptions and translations of them all.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:Electron bombardment by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      It took me no time at all to figure out that it's Greek to me.

    5. Re:Electron bombardment by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah; that'll probably be the most common comment from anyone who looks at them. Except for those that know a little Greek, who'll most say "WTF is this???"

      Then they'll look a bit closer, and after a while, say "Hey I see a Greek word there!"

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  20. "It takes 12 hours to scan one page..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...It takes 12 hours to scan one page, then the information is posted online.

    The scanner I had connected to my 386 back in 1989 took even longer to do its thing, and then it was another few hours before the pics made it to the BBS's pr0n section via my 1200 bps modem. Ah, progress!
  21. I had a book like that. by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had a bible on vellum made by some printing company called Gutenberg, but some asshole called Martin Luther scribbeld all these corrections over it, so I used it to light the fireplace.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:I had a book like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on mods - Insightful??? WTF? Give +1 Funny, but how is that Insightful

  22. Explain those "dark" ages by mangu · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    If it was just the text of archimedes, then it would have been destroyed during the dark ages...
    Since it was a prayer book, nobody dared


    Well, why do you think those ages were "dark" in the first place? It was because they destroyed scientific writings to record prayers. You are inverting cause and effect here.


    Dark ages will cease to exist when people have more respect for scientific works than for prayer books.

    1. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The dark ages were more a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire. The monks were among the few people who kept education going. The monasteries of Ireland were one of the few bastions of learning and knowledge during the Dark Ages.

    2. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The dark ages were more a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire.


      And the Roman Empire collapsed when religion became the only thing worth worrying about. You cannot just ignore the effect that christianity had in the collapse of the empire. When religious leaders started killing scientists and burning their libraries, it's very hypocritical to call the churches "bastions of learning and knowledge".

    3. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mob of Jews kills Christians. Mob of Christians get angry, seek revenge, kill Christians and burn some stuff. That's hardly a matter of being for or against learning and science. It was opposing tribes rioting against each other. Reminds me very much of Northern Ireland, where the problems are really two cultures clashing, rather than two religions.

      I'm sure that members of the church did at times have in influence on the decline of the Roman Empire, something I never claimed to ignore, but as the church and state become intermeshed, that brought corruption, so it is more an illustration of the problems of church getting mixed up, rather than a proof of Christianity being anti-knowledge. i think that that the way the church got so involved with the state is a travesty and thoroughly unbiblical. Constantine made a lot of mistakes in that regard.

      The church of Rome actually had very little influence on many areas of Christianity e.g. Celtic Christians and Eastern Orthodox during this time, so it's also rather unjust to tar all of Christianity with the same brush, especially given that the Protestant view is that the Roman church became increasingly corrupt during this time, requiring the Reformation. Christians involved with the Reformation had a very high of science and knowledge, seeing it as the Christian's duty to investigate God's creation, just as many monks had previously seen it as their duty to record history, providing us with a great part of the little history we have from the 'Dark Ages.' Incidentally, this view was carried on into latter centuries and well embodied by such scientists as Faraday and Maxwell, who were very passionate about science, but also staunchly evangelical Christians.

      I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Dark ages to see some of the misconceptions and biases that people have concerning the term and the time.

    4. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by MECC · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the entire question of religion and its effect on societies could be better rephrased to ask if there's a religious framework out there that has demonstrated the best ability to curb violence and hatred.

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    5. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by bcwright · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      And the Roman Empire collapsed when religion became the only thing worth worrying about. You cannot just ignore the effect that christianity had in the collapse of the empire.

      And of course the Spanish Empire and the British Empire (both heavily - in fact nearly exclusively - Christianized) never existed. :-)

      When a society faces serious difficulties, science only comes into the picture when the society faces threats that can be addressed by scientific means - either through the need to compete with other societies, or against nature. Neither of these were case in ancient Rome.

      The primary factors in the collapse of the Roman Empire were economic, not religious or scientific. Oversimplifying only slightly, the privileged classes used the tax revenues from the empire to give the people "bread and circuses" and endless extravagent parties for themselves, and nobody got any real work done other than the overtaxed peoples who had been subjugated. Obviously this arrangement can't go on forever, especially when the subjects start becoming restless or when faced with a formidable external enemy - both of which happened to Rome.

      In all seriousness, the modern welfare state as practiced in Europe and North America is a modern and thoroughly secular parallel to conditions that contributed to the collapse of Rome.

    6. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by brunokummel · · Score: 1

      Just to add some information to the post ( and to share a good book ).
      There's a really good book about this story: How the Irish Saved Civilization

      --
      What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
    7. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      The trouble then comes with getting consensus on who is actually representing a religious framework. You have to judge beliefs on their own truthfulness and merit, rather than on the actions of people who claim to adhere to them. People are unfaithful. The apostle Paul s a good example though of the power that Christianity has to turn someone from violence and hate.

    8. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Atheism. When's the last time you heard of an atheist going to a church and opening fire?

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    9. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by flacco · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the entire question of religion and its effect on societies could be better rephrased to ask if there's a religious framework out there that has demonstrated the best ability to curb violence and hatred.


      you will not resolve "the entire question of religion" by evaluating its effect on society. first you will have to resolve whether the objects of religious belief are actually *real* or *imaginary*.


      if they're imaginary, you can go on to discuss whether religious fantasies have a net positive or negative effect on some aspect of society. if they're real, you have quite another discussion on your hands.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    10. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You know that atheism was one of the building blocks of communism?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The advance of Roman hegemony over the Hellenistic world in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC had a lot more to do with the stagnation of science in the west than the rise of Christianity 500 years later. In terms of the ancient scientists worth knowing about, most of them lived in the Hellenistic world in the 4th - 2nd centuries BC. There is a generation or three of Alexandrines worth knowing about from the late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD (Heron, Ptolemy, Galen) etc, but for the most part, the western science died not from the mob, but on the swordpoint of the Roman legionnaire, which incidentally, was where Archimedes met his end. If necessity is the mother of invention, liberty is the midwife.

    12. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by conglacio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The governments of China and Russia (during the communist era) persecuted, imprisoned and killed many Jehovahs Wittnesses. Presumably, these athiests did the same with people of other religions.

    13. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by Mortice · · Score: 1

      you will not resolve "the entire question of religion" by evaluating its effect on society. first you will have to resolve whether the objects of religious belief are actually *real* or *imaginary*.

      Since this is, for all intents and purposes and in lieu of a bona fide miracle, impossible, we can assume whatever we like, and then discuss the effect of each religious belief on society, which is exactly the GP's project. How does your appeal to ignorance help anyone?
    14. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      replacing "worship of god" with "worship of the party/state" is not aethism.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by shyguy.zero · · Score: 1

      dark age = result of constantine's conversion, irish monks nothing more than group of illiterate fanatics, preservation of ancient knowledge © Muslim World "in arabic translation of..." destroyed by crushaders, The Romans, epicurean & stoic romans created the world unsurpassed until 19 century [15 century after fall], christians nothing more than komunists, marx + saul of tarsus = the same instinct, sorry for my english

    16. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by shyguy.zero · · Score: 1

      please post name of irish christian philosophers 400 - 1000 ce

    17. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by Pooua · · Score: 2, Informative

      The term, "Dark Ages" is generally shunned by historians as it calls up inaccurate stereotypes.

      "This concept of a 'Dark Age' was created by Italian humanists and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. ... Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a 'Dark Age' by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself.

      "In Britain and the United States, the phrase 'Dark Ages' has occasionally been used by professionals, with severe qualification, as a term of periodization. This usage is intended as non-judgmental and simply means the relative lack of written record, 'silent' as much as 'dark.'"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

      The Roman Empire collapsed at least partially as a consequence of Romans using barbarians (ancestors of France and Germany) to fill their menial jobs, particularly in the military and government services. The reason that 410 A.D. is sometimes considered the start of the Dark Ages is that year the barbarians (Vandals, Visigoths, etc.) destroyed the City of Rome.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages

      At some point in the 5th Century, the rule of Western Roman Emperors over the Western Roman Empire generally is believed to have ended, with the result of the general breakup of the Western Roman Empire. Or not:

      "The traditional date of the fall of the Roman Empire is September 4, 476 when Romulus Augustus, the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed. However, many historians question this date, and use other benchmarks to describe the 'Fall.' Why the Empire fell seems to be relevant to every new generation, and a seemingly endless supply of theories are discussed on why it happened, or indeed if it happened at all."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_ Empire

      The history of the Dark Ages is not as simple as religion versus science. The people who coined the term, "medieval," that is, the humanists, were not necessarily a religious force, but they were opposed to intellectual rigor. As a consequence, scientific inquiry under the humanists declined. (see "EVALUATIONS OF MEDIEVAL CULTURE: The Renaissance View of the Middle Ages," Macquarie University http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/x5201.html )

      The previous poster is quite correct that the reason that we have this scientific document today is that some monk wrote over it. You should not fault the monk for that; in the 19th Century, many European explorers were just as happy to burn piles of papyrus documents that lay strewn all about in the trash, so they could smell the odor, losing for us uncountable history in the process. The monk's re-use of the writing surface was standard practice for all sorts of writing uses for thousands of years, because writing materials were expensive. I recall that some of the great early modern European astronomers wrote their observations on a piece of wood, which they sanded down when they were finished, so they could re-use the board.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    18. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      And the Roman Empire collapsed when religion became the only thing worth worrying about.

      That has to be the single dumbest thing I've ever read. Do they even teach history any more?

      The Western Roman Empire fell for a number of reasons. There was a decline in population from a variety of factors (notably disease), the Capital moved to Constantinople, and the economy couldn't therefor support the number of legions to keep the Germanic tribes out of the frontier anymore so they started letting folks through and even recruiting them to fill out the legions. So now you had non-Romans who were Roman-trained inside the Western Empire's borders, and they thought, "Hey, let's take over." And they did.

      The Eastern Empire, continued right up until the sacking of Constantinople by the Islamic Conquest (and, sadly, not without some really stupid moves on the part of "Crusaders" sacking the dang city from behind, morons). Religion was firmly entrenched in that society - which seemed to do just fine for a number of years.

    19. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by the_womble · · Score: 1
      the Protestant view is that the Roman church became increasingly corrupt


      I would say that is the Catholic view as well - it is unfortunately but true that the church was corrupted.


      I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Dark ages to see some of the misconceptions and biases that people have concerning the term and the time.


      The last thing most people want is to lose their nice comforting misconceptions.

    20. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by the_womble · · Score: 1

      They killed an imprisoned a lot of other people as well.

      And then there was Pol Pot who killed something like 2m people with hundreds of thousands of them tortured to death. The thought of what he would have done if he had run a large country.

    21. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      I don't know about an atheist opening fire in a church, but Stalin and Pol Pot sure had a way with people.

      And before you start crying your pretty little eyes out, yes, I understand that atheism may not have been the cause of their violence. But atheism certainly didn't prevent them from commiting genocide. People are people, religion is just an excuse.

    22. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      I would say that is the Catholic view as well - it is unfortunately but true that the church was corrupted.

      That's somewhat reassuring to hear. I don't usually comment on Catholic beliefs since I strongly disagree with many of the official doctrines of that church, but know that a lot of people who would call themselves Catholics don't actually agree with them either, so it would be a tad foolish of me to make generalisations.

      The last thing most people want is to lose their nice comforting misconceptions.

      How true.

    23. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      The governments of China and Russia (during the communist era) persecuted, imprisoned and killed many Jehovahs Wittnesses
      Well, if those Jehovahs Wittnesses go from door to door trying to convince people to convert like they do here, then I can perfectly understand Russia and China.
    24. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by conglacio · · Score: 1

      Death just for wanting to speak to people about something that they think will help people? That's harsh.

    25. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Doing this weekly by the same people is real life spam. What do you do with spam? Delete it.

    26. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by conglacio · · Score: 1

      You delete a message, not a whole fliping person! And the motive for the "spam" is different, it's not about profit, it's simply that they believe that the message they have is important.

    27. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You know that atheism was one of the building blocks of communism?

      It is a requirement for fascism. When God is first on the list of people's priorities, they have someone to answer to other than the state. That is why all authoritarian governemnts frown on Christianity (I specify that one because other religions can allow for the state and laws to superscede faith, Christianity does not).

      Oh, and athiesm is unrelated to communism. There can be a communist state with 100% Christian population. The problem is that every attempt at Communism has been done by people that feared their populations and wanted to control them, and allowing religion interfered with that goal. Presenting Communism and religion as mutually exclusive seems to be a trick of the people that hate/fear communism (I'm not saying you fall into that category, but that you've heard it from them and picked it up). And no, Karl Marx' scribings are not the only implementation of Communism, so don't take one athiest's word on how he'd do it to be the only way.

    28. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by ccp · · Score: 1
      Atheism. When's the last time you heard of an atheist going to a church and opening fire?

      Just from memory:

      Mexican Revolution.

      Spanish Civil War.

      Cheers,
      CC
    29. Re:Explain those "dark" ages by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

      Yep, and I have a special message for those God-Botherers/Bible Bashers/Weirdos/Jehovah's Wahtsits who arrive at my door:

      "Gee, I'm really sorry, I don't have any time for you right now - but if you give me your home address, I'll pop over later on when I have some spare time."

      Invariably they tell me they aren't allowed to give out their home address, to which I reply:

      "I guess that's because you don't want complete strangers bugging the shit out of you in your private home."

      I then close the door, and hope the message sinks in.

      Thanks to Jerry Seinfeld here, for the only funny thing he ever did.

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  23. What Archimedes Forgot by tonyr1988 · · Score: 4, Funny

    chmod 711

  24. OK... So where are the Translations??? by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 3, Insightful



    If there's one thing that drives me nuts about science these days is that there seems to be such an effort to maintain a hard line between the academics and the "public"...

    ...how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts? Oh, I forgot- We're supposed to accept the fact that it's important because they say so- We don't have to bother reading any of the actual text and evaluate its value for ourselves...

    Admittedly, they could be buried deep in the website somewhere were I coudn't find them... or, maybe they are still working on official translations and don't want to put anything that's inaccurate on the site, but I doubt it- Instead, the passages the translated probably sound boring and so they'll publish it in obscure science journals- All the public will hear about (I fear) is "Look! We're so cool for recovering the pampliset!"

    True, they are cool for translating this thing, I agree- But why not give the public a better pathway into understanding the meaning of this find by showing us the money? Would it really kill them? Maybe we, the public, can appreciate the inherent value of even some obscure, boring-sounding passages?

    I have the same complaint about PBS and the recent special on "String Theory"- These science programs (which are admittedly better than nothing) work so hard to be accessible that they put a subconscious barrier between "average people" and "scientists" that I think becomes self defeating to the advancement of science- A PBS program on String Theory would be far more awesome if there was an attempt made to make the program a gateway into the science, giving a few basic formulas and some feeling for the real science. Sure, the formulas might seem a bit boring and basic and maybe some folks won't take the mental effort to try to follow along... but a small peek "under the hood" (even if you don't understand it) would still be far more interesting than a bunch of bland generalizations that just tells you they don't think people really care about the important details. </rant>

    1. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

      a hard line between the academics and the "public"...

            The hard line is in your head. Scientists are part of "the public".

            The only thing stopping you from becoming a scientist is a few years of education. During this process you will not only learn the important stuff but also more importantly you will learn where and how to find the knowledge you need. There's no conspiracy to keep information from you, but it seems that you want to know things without actually having to learn them. No one is obligated to pour knowledge into your head. That stopped once mom and dad got fed up of answering your questions as a toddler. You can find all of those "obscure science magazines" at any decent library, or online. Perhaps you would also like to complain about scientists writing in "obscure technical jargon" in these magazines as well?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could do what I did this morning when I read this and learn Greek ;)

    3. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Shrithe · · Score: 1

      More likely is that there isn't a translation yet. There's bits and fragments of translated text, I'm sure, but they're not likely to release a translation until they've scanned and cleaned up as much of the text as they can.

      This isn't malice, this is doing things more methodically than you'd like.

    4. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by lemonysam · · Score: 1

      You understand that this is still a work in progress, right? Translating ancient texts well can take many years and even then will probably continue to be controversial long after that. The story now may be all about the techniques they're using to make the texts readable but as the project progresses translations will hopefully become available.

      In terms more common to Slashdot, it's like they're trying to reverse engineer the drivers for some obscure old piece of hardware. Right now they're mapping out the system calls that the hardware makes and finding out how to communicate with it. The next stage of the project will be to use that to produce a usable product. In this case that usable product is (for most people) the translated version.

      I've no idea whether science is conspiring against us punters - I suspect not - but in this case you're just placing unfair demands on a fledgling project. A project which I'll now be following with interest!

      Cheers,
      Sam

    5. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 2, Informative

      > There's no conspiracy to keep information from you...

      I am being a little hard on them, admittedly... I just think they created this nice public website for a purpose and giving some preliminary translations would further that purpose beautifully...

      > No one is obligated to pour knowledge into your head...

      The Walters Art Museum receives extensive government grants which stipulates that they offer educational resources to the public.

    6. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by gd23ka · · Score: 0, Troll

      As a scientist: you're so full of it. Of course I'm hiding behind my Slashdot identity here and wouldn't
      put it so bluntly in real life but still: you have no idea what you're talking about.

      The gentleman here is complaining why "science" or rather its (orthodox) findings are so inaccessible to
      the public and he has a damm good point here.

      1. I had latin and greek class in highschool .. I don't think that's even offered in the USA
      today and that kind of knowledge could come in handy perusing that kind of material.
      But even so a lot of of material out there could be transcoded into what the public can understand
      even in the deliberately dumbed down state it is today.

      2. Science like any other religion has its orthodoxy and even to some degree its own Vatican and
      don't you dare publish anything heretical, excommunication means loss of grants and tenure. As
      a religion it hides behind scripture that is not meant to be accessible to the uninitiated layperson.

      So yes! Where are those translations! And while we're at it, why is it that not every single damm
      piece of parchment and clay tablet is on the internet for everyone to work with, oh and starting with
      the Dead Sea Scrolls which everybody knows about but few are allowed to see?? Why is it that the
      Vatican can hide tons of ancient scripts from us??

      To anybody withholding information from the public and preventing research, here's a heart-felt
      F U C K Y O U!! (I can say that when I'm hiding behind gd23ka)

    7. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and so they'll publish it in obscure science journals

      It's you that puts a hard line between yourself and "the academics." After all, your claim amounts to saying that the information doesn't exist unless it's on your favorite TV program. A journal is a perfectly good place to put such reports, making it into TV program doesn't add anything. If you want to read them, simply go to the journals (Incidentally, putting such papers on the web is usually not allowed by the journals that print them, they have an exclusive deal)

      Secondly, if you're now complaining that those journals are hard to read, or presume a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader - yes, they do that. People with years of study into a subject can talk about it on a level that requires something close to that to follow - for instance, I'd expect them not to work with translations at all, possibly a transcription into some canonical form of Old Greek, but I don't see why they'd translate it into Modern English and then study that.

      So they don't give an English translation because they don't have any; writing one is substantial work that has nothing to do with their job. Translated works of Archimedes are available, if you want them, just not of every single page ever found - no market for it.

      So you have to know a lot to follow forefront of science, no surprise there. Similar to the reason PBS has to limit itself to superficiliaties on String Theory: you can't explain a six year physics course in a series of TV programs. And that is, at least, what is necessary to understand what a small area of the current forefront of string theory is about.

    8. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by daniil · · Score: 1

      ...how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts? Oh, I forgot- We're supposed to accept the fact that it's important because they say so- We don't have to bother reading any of the actual text and evaluate its value for ourselves...

      1) Hasn't it occurred to you that perhaps they haven't been translated yet? It's one thing to do a cursory reading of a text to understand what it's about but translating it is a totally different process.
      2) The newly discovered text is obviously important to historians and historians of Mathematics. There could be other people interested in it as well. But what else is there to this discovery to the "public" (ie people like you and me), other than the cool factor?

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    9. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 1

      > but in this case you're just placing unfair demands on a fledgling project.

      ...perhaps... I guess I just find the general tenor of such press releases related to science topics by institutions that have an educational mission somewhat disappointing... Clearly, they have put enormous effort into this website that clearly took a lot of time and they could have shown some preliminary translations of fragments (with disclaimers) if they really wanted to...

      I just worry if we don't expect such press releases to have some more substance behind them (that is made at least somewhat easy to understand) that it makes it too easy for institutions to manipulate people on other scientific issues.

    10. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 1

      > After all, your claim amounts to saying that the information doesn't exist unless it's on your favorite TV program.

      Yes and No- If my favorite TV program had a report saying a scientist did something amazing and there's an easy, concrete way to show what this amazing thing is (such as giving an example of a couple of translated sentence fragments that were previously lost to history) I wish the public would expect them to do that.

      > if you're now complaining that those journals are hard to read...

      No- The existence of obscure science journals is both necessary and desirable. Sure, some of them probably could be written in less "scientificalese" and benefit from it, but that's beside the point.

      > So they don't give an English translation because they don't have any

      You don't think anyone involved in the project has translated a few sentences of this stuff into English?

      > you can't explain a six year physics course in a series of TV programs.

      No, but I suspect you could work in a couple of intriguing morsels from the Physics course and add depth and excitement to the program.

    11. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by zombie_striptease · · Score: 1

      > And while we're at it, why is it that not every single damm
      > piece of parchment and clay tablet is on the internet for everyone to work with, oh and starting with
      > the Dead Sea Scrolls which everybody knows about but few are allowed to see??

      AMEN!!! I have been saying this for /years/. Every time we open a tomb in Egypt but don't hear another word about the writings covering its walls. Every time I see a research center in South America with a vault full of rubbings from Aztec/Incan/Olmec ruins and not enough researchers to go through it. It drives me absolutely nuts.

      The most common excuse is of course that the scientists working on [piece of ancient writing] have the prerogative to withhold items from perusal to guarantee that any interesting discoveries therein will carry their names and no one else's. Being that I'm one of those crazy people who believes that science is about the advancement of knowledge rather than careers, I find this altogether repulsive. Here's one future linguist who would love a chance to contribute to our pool of knowledge on /any/ of our lost civilizations.

    12. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here you go, here's a rough, almost meaningless translation of a few lines of one of the transcripts [no, I'm not kidding you; I've taken this from the second directory in the DATA section of the website]; it's almost meaningless because I simply never understood half of what Archimedes was writing (never was good with geometry):

      as (then) [Nu] of a cone [Kappa][Theta] where from the height of [Nu] of the cone (thus) the circle [Nu] to the diameter around the circle [Beta][Zeta] is then equal to this same cone [Nu] the section [Beta][Theta][Zeta][Alpha] to [Beta][Theta][Zeta][Kappa] in a figure holding one chous, the cone which, having a basis about the circle [Beta][Zeta], so a height where the whole [Epsilon][Theta] where the cut [Alpha][Beta][Zeta] of the sphere is equal to the cone [Beta][Zeta] ...

      If you actually understand geometry, or even better, Greek geometrical terminology, which is bloody esoteric, you might be able to rework this into something that means something to you, but frankly, it's just gobbledygook to me.

      No, I'm not pulling your leg. The translation sucks, and I'm missing some of the idiomatic uses of common Greek words in geometrical texts, but that's a genuine translation of a genuine excerpt from the Archimedes palimpsest.

    13. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      But why not give the public a better pathway into understanding the meaning of this find by showing us the money? Would it really kill them? Maybe we, the public, can appreciate the inherent value of even some obscure, boring-sounding passages?

      "Teacher, when will we ever use this? What's the use of knowing ancient Greek?"

      And that's why they don't bother to force-feed the "public" to the level of those who study on their own and become scientists.

      Oh, as for your original question? Perhaps it takes some time to verify the reading and authorship, and then more time to ensure the translation is accurate. It's not like anyone speaks ancient Greek natively.

    14. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts? Oh, I forgot- We're supposed to accept the fact that it's important because they say so

      Well, unless you have a background in Archimedes, mathematics, or ancient greek (all the domain of "they"), I don't think you're going to be able to understand the importance of even a translated work. Despite your protestations, all opinions on this kind of thing aren't equal. People who have these backgrounds are much more qualified to interpret what this stuff means (and no, that certainly doesn't include me by any stretch of the imagination). I find this attitude kind of strange. You don't actually want to learn any of these subjects, but expect to be able to just read a 2200 year old text and instantly understand the context of the work without listening to what other more qualified people have to say. Would you expect someone who doesn't know C++ to be able to instantly know what the source code of a program means without knowing C++?

      It's more than a little funny that you're critisizing the researchers for publishing the raw scans of the data, (so anyone in the world can study them), but not instantly freely publishing the fruits of their labor. There is often a quite valid criticism of researchers hoarding the raw data of vitally important pieces for years. I believe the dead sea scrolls are a prime example of this. But that's not the case here. If you really wanted to you could learn greek and translate the thing yourself. That's the only "barrier" that exists here.

      There's also another important point to make here. Have you seen the scanned texts? Even with the special x-ray enhanced versions it's a big mess. It's not as if this is a 20 minute job via google translation. This kind of thing is generally done very slowly with groups of people working together. It's also a competition between all these groups to make discoveries. There was a really good Nova special on the text a few months ago, and translating the texts was a very painstaking process.

      Instead, the passages the translated probably sound boring and so they'll publish it in obscure science journals- All the public will hear about (I fear) is "Look! We're so cool for recovering the pampliset!"

      Well, science has long used scientific journals to communicate polished ideas to other people in the field. The papers are written for a specialized audience, so the general public likely wouldn't understand the vast majority of them since it's assumed everyone has a general background in the area of expertise. The main barrier of these journals isn't the obscurity of them. With a little less laziness you could easily go and find the names of them. The main barrier is just expense. It costs a lot of money to subscribe to these journals, so your average Joe just can't afford them. There's a movement to change this because scientists don't like spending thousands of dollars on journals anymore than average Joe does, so many people are moving towards publishing on the internet.

      True, they are cool for translating this thing, I agree- But why not give the public a better pathway into understanding the meaning of this find by showing us the money? Would it really kill them? Maybe we, the public, can appreciate the inherent value of even some obscure, boring-sounding passages?

      Science takes time, and research isn't free. At some point I'm sure that a concensus translation will be available. It might be even made available for free, but I would have no problem with charging money for it. Why should they be expected to give away thousands of hours of work for free? You seem to have this attitude that if it's not published on the front page of the New York Times, then the scientists are trying to hide something.

      I have the same complaint about PBS and the recent special on "String Theory"- These science programs (which are admittedly better than nothing) work

      --
      AccountKiller
    15. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Metex · · Score: 1

      ...how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts? Oh, I forgot- We're supposed to accept the fact that it's important because they say so- We don't have to bother reading any of the actual text and evaluate its value for ourselves...

      Because 99.99% fo the time the importance of said discovery isnt known. Even if it is, it is hard to convey the importance of said discovery is to people.

      Lets hypotheticly take the discovery of a magnetic monopole. This would be increadeble finding a magent that only has 1 side. What would I say to someone on the street as to how increadable this is?

      me: I found a magnet that only has one side!
      him: magnets always have a N and S side....
      me: but I found it. this is amazing!
      him: what can it do?
      me: ... umm it is cool?
      him: so it doesnt do anything for me? so how is it amazing?
      me: ...

      What makes people feel great and what they usually understand is the finished product. The computer, the cell phone, ect ect. They really dont see the importance of each piece of technology that goes into it. Only combined can 'they feel the importance' of scientific improvement.

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    16. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Right. So all he needs ia a few years of education, so then he will be a scientist, and of course any scientist can make perfect sense of the untranslated documents.

      I agree with the parent completely - I was hoping to see translations too. Considering the amount of money that has been spent to acquire this imagery, it would be ludicrous to assume that some very knowledgeable people in this field are not translating the text as soon as it is revealed.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    17. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative
      I am being a little hard on them, admittedly... I just think they created this nice public website for a purpose and giving some preliminary translations would further that purpose beautifully...

      Preliminary translations will take months - once the have deciphered the images, this isn't just a case of running it through Bablefish.
       
      The first step is character recognition - a human has to examine each character and determine what it is. Once that's done, entire words can be examined to see if they actually are words. (Foulups in the character recognition can pridace wgrds taat kjflas moue aljefh.) Once *that* is done, the words can be strung together and sentences roughly translated - if they orange bluebird, then they have to redo some of the earlier steps. Worse yet, the meaninings of the various Greek words don't map directly into English - so each of the words and possible meanings have to be compared and considered in context. (A single sentence can possible have anywhere from 2-3 to 5 or more possible meanings.) That process has to be repeated again at (what would correspond to) the paragraph level, and then again at the chapter and book levels.
    18. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > as (then) [Nu] of a cone [Kappa][Theta] where from the height of [Nu] of the cone (thus) the circle [Nu] to the diameter around the circle [Beta][Zeta]...

      Thanks for hunting that down- I think that's great! I just wish they would work that fragment into the introductory section of the website- Anyone who's ever had geometry in high school can gleem all kinds of useful things about this fragment:

      1. It shows without much doubt to anyone that they have achieved success, by a direct example.

      2. The text they found really does cover meaty (by ancient greek standards) mathematical concepts- It's not just Archimedes talking about something that that he was less of an authority in and therefore potentially less interesting (like whether god is a "trinity" or a "quadrinity" or some other equivalently esoteric thing ancient scientists often worried about)

      3. They were able to read enough info to deduce entire sentences, not just words

      4. Since similar things (circles, cones) are discussed in school to this day, it shows a seemingly direct link between modern mathematics and Archimedal mathematics

      5. Archimedes clearly thought about some incredibly abstract things- His far more well known law of bouyancy wasn't just a lucky accident.

    19. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FTFA (http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/scholarship_w ilson7.html):

      The project is due for completion in 2007, when a considerably improved edition of Archimedes will be a realistic prospect, and this edition will not be the sole outcome of the collaborative enterprise.


      You know, it's just possible that you're going to have to resign yourself to the idea of putting in just a little bit of effort when you want to learn something. You can't just sit and wait for someone to come along and tell you everything. Have you tried looking at the forum they have at their site? There's a very short thread that makes it clear that they haven't translated the thing yet, though they are trying to do so and make it available as soon as they can.

      Learning is not a passive activity that you sit through. It is a process in which you, if you wish it to be valuable, must actively participate.
    20. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I've never considered television the best medium for reading and pondering equations on (unless perhaps they can have a heavy graphical representation.)

    21. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      You're a complete nut job then and you will end like John Allegro who like you should know made portions
      of the Dead Sea Scrolls available to the general public. If you ask me, John Allegro contributed more
      to human knowledge and told the Vatican to go fuck themselves hard.

      It seems that the Dead Sea Scrolls depict a "christianity" that was into sex magick and used psychedelic
      mushrooms which seems to be quiete incompatible with the nightmare society they want that wages the War
      on Drugs(tm) and derides sexuality.

    22. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by asdfgl · · Score: 1

      Translating Koine, the form of greek Arkimedes wrote in, don't take years, minutes rather, it's also hard to get controversial results. Provided that you have a good copy of the text, that is. The problem here isn't the actual translating but to recover the actual text... And in that some extra eyes could be useful, no?

    23. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I should point out that what I posted was my own incredibly rough translation from the Greek, not a translation by the Archimedes Palimpsest folks. There are good reasons they don't want to officially translate it yet - in classics, you tend to publish a complete transcription and a complete translation together (see the Oxyrrhynchus Papyri for hundreds of examples) months or even years after announcing what you *think* you've found. I tried reading those photos, and they are illegible to me - someone who, while not an expert at papyrology or paleography, knows even to usually get the gist of a text from a close reading.

      The text I selected is very reminiscent of something by Archimedes we do have, his book on Conics. It may even be a passage we already had. Even if it is, though, it would still be important because it would help to establish the authorship of other texts bound in the same book (more or less, it's a lot more complicated than that), and provide another exemplar that may preserve superior readings to the MS tradition we have. Remember, by the way, that this is not a manuscript, but is rather a much later copy, probably used in a library that eventually came into the possession of a religious community that didn't have the money to buy their own vellum.

      For the conics stuff, and more selections from Archimedes, see *Greek Mathematical Works II: Aristarchus to Pappus of Alexandria*, translated by Ivor Thomas: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1941,1993. This selection also includes some of Archimedes' more theoretical stuff, like the *Sand-Reckoner* (method of expressing large numbers by a system somewhat, but not quite, like scientific notation). There was never any doubt that Archimedes was doing first-rate hard math; the scary thing the palimpsest texts seem to be teaching us is that he had a much firmer grasp of advanced mathematical theory than we thought was possible in the ancient world.

    24. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about? All the Dead Sea Scrolls were released to the public. Most, if not all, predate Christianity. Oh yeah... I forgot... some people actually believe tools like Baigent and Leigh are serious scholars who know their shit. You're the same kind of person that takes the "history" and "facts" presented in the Da Vinci Code seriously.

    25. Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ...how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts?

      Hey, they're posting the scanned text online as rather large images. It's an Open Source project. So pick a page and start translating it. I'm sure they'll appreciate the help. And having several of us do the same page will help; they can compare the translations, consult with other experts on classical Greek, and produce a well-annotated translation much faster than a handful of academics would manage.

      Don't just complain; contribute to the effort ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  25. Mod parent down by daniil · · Score: 1

    Mod parent down. I hadn't RTFA before writing that comment and it seems that I was mistaken.

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
  26. Your argument is not symmetric by mangu · · Score: 1, Insightful
    How many files have you deleted from your hard-drive that perhaps in a couple hundred years would allow archeologist to get better insight on your generation


    That would be a valid argument for not deleting a hard drive that had belonged to Stephen Hawking. In my own hard drive, any file I delete to replace with another leaves a message to the future about which things are considered important today.


    The problem with religious people is that they consider that anything is inferior when compared to religion. A text written by one of the most outstanding scientists of antiquity being deleted by an unknown medieval monk is an excellent argument against religion in general. Think if some student of physics deleted the original manuscript of one of the books in the Bible to write a simple exercise in mechanics.


    This period was well in the dark ages, saving old stuff wasn't the goal or even seemed that valuable.


    As I mentioned in another post, that's exactly the reason why those ages were "dark". They had the wrong idea on which information is valuable. By ignoring this world and concentrating instead on another future life, they created a period of one thousand years of some of the worst suffering humanity has ever seen.

    1. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How shocking! Someone thinks that there is something more important than science! Clearly there must be a problem with them. After all, everything is inferior to science, isn't it?

      Now that's possibly not how you intended to come across, but it's how it sounds. Do you really think that science is the be all and end all of life? And do you really think that the monk was writing over the only copy of that document? There were bound to have been others, but time, natural disasters and wars have put an end to them.

      As one of my quantum mechanics tutors once said, 'Physics is what we do in our spare time, when there's nothing better to be doing.' Well, something very close to that. And before you decide he didn't care about science or was a nutjob, he was actually a researcher at Oxford and now has a chair at Cambridge, doing quantum computing. Great scientist, but he also had his priorities right.

    2. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get a position at Cambridge doing science in your spare time, so either you're lying, you misunderstood what he said, you're misrepresenting what he said, or he was engaged in hyperbole. And yes, science trumps prayers every time.

    3. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Well of course he was engaging in hyperbole; hyperbole is a rhetorical device. Obviously he wasn't doing physics in his spare time if it was his full time job. The point he was making is that there are more important things in life than physics.

      Incidentally, where did I bring prayer into things and what on earth does it have to do with science? One is asking for the intervention of a supernatural God, the other involves the creation of a model that best matches our observations of the natural universe. Prayer doesn't invalidate science and science has nothing to say about the supernatural. You may as well have just said 'French trumps music every time.'

    4. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by be-fan · · Score: 1

      After all, everything is inferior to science, isn't it?

      Yep, pretty much. Everything else is just a way to unwind so we can be fresh to do more science the next day...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    5. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by mangu · · Score: 1
      Do you really think that science is the be all and end all of life?


      That's one form of distorting what I said that sounds suspiciously close to some form of jesuit debating technique. Did you study at a jesuit school? I never wrote that science is the "be all and end all of life". What I wrote is that it's wrong to believe something, anything at all, is that "be all and end all of life", the way religious people think about their religion. Scientists do not think like that.


      When you have a scientific approach to life you get to be more or less protected from such mistakes. You tend to approach situations with caution, you tend to analyze before believing things blindly, you do not assume that anything is the "be all and end all of life" because you know that you can be mistaken.

    6. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by whoop · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, being hostile to religions is their religion.

    7. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by alfs+boner · · Score: 1
      How shocking! Someone thinks that there is something more important than science! Clearly there must be a problem with them. After all, everything is inferior to science, isn't it?

      .

      Starting Score: 1 point

      Moderation -1

      100% Flamebait

      Haha, 0wned.

      --
      Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
    8. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose expecting you to RTFA is too much, eh?

    9. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      That's one form of distorting what I said that sounds suspiciously close to some form of jesuit debating technique. Did you study at a jesuit school?

      Actually I went to fairly standard state schools before reading Physics at Keble College, Oxford.

      I never wrote that science is the "be all and end all of life". What I wrote is that it's wrong to believe something, anything at all, is that "be all and end all of life", the way religious people think about their religion. Scientists do not think like that.

      Actually you said that having everything be inferior to religion is wrong and that having a single work of "one of the most outstanding scientists of antiquity" written over by a single unknown monk was "an excellent argument against religion in general." It seems a little harsh to condemn religion on the basis of one unknown man's actions, so I surmised that your view of science was very high. Perhaps I overestimated your view, but given the venom you displayed towards religion, it was very much the way you came across.

      When you have a scientific approach to life you get to be more or less protected from such mistakes.

      Science can't be applied to every area of life and it's not meant to be. If you tried to, you'd be making a terrible mistake, or applying science incorrectly.

      You tend to approach situations with caution, you tend to analyze before believing things blindly, you do not assume that anything is the "be all and end all of life" because you know that you can be mistaken.

      And here you appear to have made a mistake. It would seem that you are implying that those who follow a religion do so blindly, a statement made without sound analysis, abandoning caution and blindly assuming something that is completely without truth. And the decision to have Christ as the be all and end all of life is a carefully reasoned one that makes sense in light of the facts at hand, rather than being an assumption.

      I find it interesting the Maxwell and Faraday, arguably two of the finest scientific minds the British Isles have produced, had zero problems with this attitude, something that could be said of the many other scientists who call Jesus their Lord.

      Michael Faraday:

      And therefore, brethren, we ought to value the privilege of knowing God's truth far beyond anything we can have in this world. The more we see the perfection of God's law fulfilled in Christ, the more we ought to thank God for His unspeakable gift.

      James Clerk Maxwell

      Now my great plan, which was conceived of old, ... is to let nothing be wilfully left unexamined. Nothing is to be holy ground consecrated to Stationary Faith, whether positive or negative. All fallow land is to be ploughed up and a regular system of rotation followed. ... Never hide anything, be it weed or no, nor seem to wish it hidden. ... Again I assert the Right of Trespass on any plot of Holy Ground which any man has set apart. ... Now I am convinced that no one but a Christian can actually purge his land of these holy spots. ... I do not say that no Christians have enclosed places of this sort. Many have a great deal, and every one has some. But there are extensive and important tracts in the territory of the Scoffer, the Pantheist, the Quietist, Formalist, Dogmatist, Sensualist, and the rest, which are openly and solemnly Tabooed. ...
      Christianity - that is, the religion of the Bible - is the only scheme or form of belief which disavows any possessions on such a tenure. Here alone all is free. You may fly to the ends of the world and find no God but the Author of Salvation. You may search the Scriptures and not find a

    10. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by solaraddict · · Score: 1
      As I mentioned in another post, that's exactly the reason why those ages were "dark". They had the wrong idea on which information is valuable. By ignoring this world and concentrating instead on another future life, they created a period of one thousand years of some of the worst suffering humanity has ever seen.

      I disagree - the Dark Ages came about mostly as a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire (the reasons for which were mostly demographical, military, economical and efficiency-related). When the world around you looks like all civilization has ended and it is going back to stone age, turning to a promise of the next world looks understandable to me.

      Moreover, your assumption of "wrong idea on which information is valuable" sounds rather arrogant to me, as in "we know what is important, they didn't, therefore they were dumb." We know what is important for us. The monk probably saw the manuscript as unimportant, not because of ingorance, but because of different priorities.

      Let me try to put the Dark Ages into a present-day perspective: After an all-out worldwide biological war sparked by the Middle East conflict, the population of the world has plunged from 6 billion to 100 million. It would be an understatement to speak of an economical collapse, as there ceased to be any economy to speak of: isolated settlements have been struggling to survive on their own, without the support and logistics of a global civilization. The cities have once again become villages, with cows and goats roaming amongst the abandoned ruins of cities. Now, picture yourself in that situation: would you think of preserving the works of Stephen Hawking for a purely hypothetical future civilization (which may or may not arise again), especially if the medium on which these works were stored could be used for something more important?

      In my opinion, the people of the Dark Ages did not "create a period of one thousand years of some of the worst suffering," they were pushed into such period by forces beyond their control and some of them (in Europe, these were most notably the monks) have tried to preserve as much of the learning they could. It's not their fault that they haven't managed to preserve it all.

    11. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by raoul666 · · Score: 1

      That would be a valid argument for not deleting a hard drive that had belonged to Stephen Hawking. In my own hard drive, any file I delete to replace with another leaves a message to the future about which things are considered important today. While I agree in a lot of ways, something archeologists and historians are often curious about is the day-to-day life of people in ages long past. Sure, the important stuff ought to be saved - but so should ordinary, everyday stuff like emails, instant messages, slashdot comments, etc. That'll tell the generations to come more about us than some physics formulas.

      --
      When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
    12. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed how religious people have turned from actual believing to something specific to a generic defense of religiousness? There's probably nothing at all in Christianity's teachings that tells you that what the monk did was right (especially given how Jesus has already taught us how to pray, and supposedly doesn't need any fancier prayers) -- but you defend him on the general basis of defending religiousness.

    13. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by mangu · · Score: 1
      It seems a little harsh to condemn religion on the basis of one unknown man's actions


      Not when this class of action was so common they have a special name for it: "palimpsest". I have never worked with parchment, so I cannot tell, but I wonder how much easier it is to scrape off ancient knowledge rather than to prepare a new skin for parchment.

    14. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      In fact, some religions would indicate that it was a very naughty thing he did. Judaism was very strict about the importance of all texts, and in Islam, Muhammad is actually quoted in one of the holy texts as saying that the ink of a scholar is worth more (in the spiritual, not financial sense) than the blood of a martyr.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    15. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      It was fairly common practise by just about anyone using parchment. It wasn't cheap, it wasn't common, so everyone reused bits. It's not religion trying to suppress science or mathematics.

    16. Re:Your argument is not symmetric by Proud+like+a+god · · Score: 1

      I think your sig has a spelling mistake and you meant bghynjf instead of bhgynjf.

  27. Report Card Grade "enhancements" by jgercken · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can just see my parents employing Reverse XRF Calcium imaging on all my 20 year old report cards to detect those F's that I cleverly transformed into B's. They're going to be soo mad I'll get a beating for sure.

    --
    Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
  28. Re: Already published? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    The news event behind this article does seem familiar, though. But I can't recall where else it appeared. Still, great stuff.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  29. Goatse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does Goatse come in to the picture?

  30. Palimpsests, awesome! by ursabear · · Score: 1

    I listened to an NPR story on this, a few days ago. I must say that the whole idea behind the science of revealing palimpsests is really neat and interesting. It is a shame that wonderful thoughts have been covered over (including paintings and music manuscripts), but it has happened, and the most important thing now (in MHO) is to rediscover the treasures lost.

    Some great paintings, writings, and music manuscripts were covered by their own artists/writers, not just by others. One should, in my opinion, remember to knock the artist/writer on the head with a stick - before they destroy their own work. As for those who re-used materials for their own use... well, I don't really know how I feel about that...

    In short, the latest imaging techniques are astounding. I am looking forward to more discoveries of palimpsests in the future!

    1. Re:Palimpsests, awesome! by daniil · · Score: 1

      One should, in my opinion, remember to knock the artist/writer on the head with a stick - before they destroy their own work.

      You're assuming that it's easy for them to do this. In my experience, destroying your own work is about the hardest thing you can do -- even if you know it's crap. It's much worse than being being hit with a stick.

      After trying to destroy the manuscript of an unfinished novel of his, a writer was once forced to admit that manuscripts don't burn*. Even if they're destroyed, they'll still live on in the memories of other people, or maybe as references or quotations in other works. Many great works of literature have gone missing, yet we still know they existed and we also know what they were about.

      * A decade later, a Russian philosopher proved him wrong by smoking the manuscript of his work on Bildungsroman. He had made two copies of it, but one of these went missing in the early months of the German invasion; he used the other one as cigarette papers.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    2. Re:Palimpsests, awesome! by yourockmyfaceoff · · Score: 1

      What's ironic about the Archimedes Palimpsest is that the palimpsesting itself is likely the only reason we actually have the manuscript now. The Archimedes text was converted to a prayerbook -- a sacred thing that was more likely to be cherished and cared for.

    3. Re:Palimpsests, awesome! by ursabear · · Score: 1

      Your perspective is very good on this one... I hadn't really thought that aspect through. On further inspection, many priceless writings, paintings, and manuscripts were turned into palimpsests, where those that were left exposed were often destroyed by ideological initiatives or religious initiatives.

      One thing I learned in my music history classes: After the Gregorian monks declared the "sacred" chords, keys, and progressions, much previous work was destroyed because the monks felt it was heresy. I wonder what delightful music or interesting writings were destroyed in religious or ideological fervor?

    4. Re:Palimpsests, awesome! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I wonder what delightful music or interesting writings were destroyed in religious or ideological fervor?

      Well, in art, we have the Neo-Classical era. However, the matching musical era is simply called Classical. Why? Because no references to "classical" music remain (classical being essentially Greek), so there would be no confusion between that Classical and the original, but the architecture and some art remains of that time, so Classical would not be a unique moniker for both. We know music existed then, we know what they played it on, we know what people thought of it, but we do not have a work from that time. It isn't known for certain whether all documentation of the music were "lost" (usually such loss was Christians destroying all culture and science they could, except for their own) or whether only the oral tradition passed along music at that time. Based off the large number of plays we know existed and the few that are left today, it is well within reason to suspect that they did write down music, but that it was "lost."

  31. Re:The proper way to write this is: by tbcpp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you say is true, for the Catholic church, and (unfortunately) may churches today. However, there are many of us Christans who follow in the footsteps of those who were also burned at the stake, tortured and killed by this "Christianity" you speak of. Just remember, just because someone calls them self a Christian, does not mean they follow the commands and wishes of Jesus Christ.

    --
    Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
  32. Re:The proper way to write this is: by ozbird · · Score: 1

    (Yes, I hate religion)

    But apparently you love Deadwood.

  33. Scientific Undiscovery by fastgood · · Score: 2, Funny

    Archimedes revealed? He had already done his best science work naked.

    1. Re:Scientific Undiscovery by Ambsace · · Score: 1

      Actually, one of the most astounding things revealed by the Palimpsest was a method for determining the volume of an irregular shaped object. In this case, he chose to devide the object in infinitely small cross-sections--wait a minute...he discovered integration! He was probably the first to even think of the concept of infinity. Maybe he was naked when he did it? You can purchase an hour-long documentary from Nova here: Archimedes' Palimpsest Unfortunately the site is bereft any great detail, but the documentary was fascinating. I can't even imagine what the world would be like if this information had not been lost. Integration before Newton? That's astounding. Knowledge like that would have changed the history of Science and Mathematics--the whole world. -T

    2. Re:Scientific Undiscovery by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      He had already done his best science work naked.

      Doesn't everybody?

      KFG

  34. Re:The proper way to write this is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Think of it, kids, if there weren't for christianity, we'd already have settled 10 planets, 5 of which extrasolar."

    Count your blessings. Without Christianity, you wouldn't exist. Think about it. Sure, there would be people here, but would you, me, or anyone else on the planet today exist? No, so don't get all hot and bothered thinking you're being cheated out of some hot alien sex.

  35. Re:The proper way to write this is: by LocalH · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Fuck off, bigot. You're just as bad as Christians who try to force their religion on you, unlike the vast majority of them who don't.

    --
    FC Closer
  36. Re:New stuff - Infinity by dww · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes - read the Scholarship section on the project web page. For example, http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/scholarship_ne tz2.html which shows that Archimedes knew about Infinity and used it in a proof. The Greeks were fascinated by large numbers - questions like "can you count the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world?" - but it was thought they did not have the concept of actual infinity. The palimpsest shows that this was known some 2000 years ago, then forgotten for centuries.

  37. Why Listen when you can watch? by Ambsace · · Score: 1

    For those who don't want to listen, Nova had an hour-long documentary on the Archimedes' Palimpsest [PBS Nova site].

    It was shown earlier this year about 4 months ago.

    Cheers,

    Tai

  38. Maybe they'll uncover Archimedes' long-lost proof by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Funny

    that P=NP.

  39. Did you notice how they use this technique???? by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

    Look at this url, from their "the Archimedes Palimpsest" Page (off of the home page of TFA): http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/images/imaging _g5.gif

    Now, oh fellow slashdotters, have a look at this lovely cube, and notice that it's top surface *is a map*. Okay, we here know that scanning from satellites can use techniques such that 'hiding under a tree' is preschool to the powers that be, but have you ever seen an image prove it so extremely viscerally? More lay people could use to see this image!

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    1. Re:Did you notice how they use this technique???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, oh fellow slashdotters, have a look at this lovely cube, and notice that it's top surface *is a map*."

      No, it is not. That is a false-color image from AVIRIS (http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov?) with wavelength & pixel values as the sides of the cube, composite image on the top. There are plenty of things to be paranoid about... but that cube is not one of them.

  40. So tell me... by calharding · · Score: 1

    ...What did Archimedes Plutonium have to say about all this?

    DNRTFA

    --
    Before enlightenment - Code C, read Usenet, play NetHack. After enlightenment - Code C, read Usenet, play NetHack.
  41. I don't think anyone has pointed this out yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  42. Re:The proper way to write this is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Just remember, just because someone calls them self a Christian, does not mean they follow the commands and wishes of Jesus Christ.


    Are you fucking retarded? (This is a serious question.)
  43. interesting by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Interesting how the church is given credit for maintaining education and preserving knowledge through the middle ages. And in spite of the Christians burning the Royal Library of Alexandria.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:interesting by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Interesting how the church is given credit for maintaining education and preserving knowledge through the middle ages. And in spite of the Christians burning the Royal Library of Alexandria."

      Not all christians can be lumped together, not only that, before modern times the only histories of the world WAS religion, you can't blame humans for the times and ages and lack of knowledge of the age in which they were born.

      Next people have motivations beyond their christianity, because one labels one 'christian' simply doesn't mean they are. Religion was often times used by people who didn't believe in it to accomplish their aims (controlling the population). I destruction of knowledge is a tool of nefariou rich people to keep their sheep in line, and crazy people.

      It certainly is not commanded anywhere in the christian bible to destroy libraries, in fact such things are sinning, since a christian is not supposed to break the laws of the land as commanded by christ in the new testament. Any true christian would be following those commandments.

    2. Re:interesting by zenhkim · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > It certainly is not commanded anywhere in the christian bible to destroy libraries, in fact such things are sinning, since a christian is not supposed to break the laws of the land as commanded by christ in the new testament. Any true christian would be following those commandments.

      *Ahem* May I direct your attention to the following passages from the Bible?

      Deuteronomy, 5:7 -- Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

      Deuteronomy, 5:8 -- Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth

      2 Corinthians, 10:5 -- Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

      1 Timothy, 6:20 -- O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

      Deuteronomy, 7:5 -- But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire

      Okay, we have our Biblical material -- now let's do a little analysis, shall we?

      Deuteronomy, 5:7
      - This is the widely recognized First Commandment, as handed down directly from God to Moses and then to the Isrealites (assuming that we disregard the second, revised edition of the Commandments that Moses later received!) and is pretty much self-explanatory: worship Me and ME ONLY!

      Deuteronomy, 5:8
      - This is the equally famous Second Commandment, which Robert A. Heinlein pointed out has really only one purpose -- to reinforce the first. More specifically, it is a direct attack on pagan religions (read: competitors) which depend heavily on physical, sacred icons of their respective gods and/or goddesses.

      2 Corinthians, 10:5
      - A loose translation of this passage might read, "Condemning creative thought processes, and every abstract concept that stands in opposition of what is known about God, putting under complete control all [people's] thinking for the sake of worshipping Jesus [and God]."
      This is a very shocking instruction to deliver to the faithful: one must abandon all free thought, shun any philosophical inquiry that contradicts Christian doctrine, and assume total domination of everyone's minds for the goal of swelling the ranks of the One True Religion. The most zealous Islamic fundamentalists probably couldn't express their life's mission much better than that [if we substitute "Allah" for "Jesus"]!

      1 Timothy, 6:20
      - This passage essentially reinforces the above verse: if there is science which is "profane" or "in vain" (read: disrespectful or disobedient towards God) then those who trust in God have to maintain opposition to such science.
      For further reflection, consider that the word "science" in this passage was originally "knowledge." If we suppose that what the original scribes meant was "scientific truth" -- i.e.: that which is known to be true based on physical evidence or logical argument -- then divine faith trumps scientific truth every time! Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church should *never* have issued an apology for their persecution and permanent house arrest of Galileo!

      Deuteronomy, 7:5
      - Here, the word "them" refers to all heathens, heretics, infidels, pagans -- i.e.: the unbelievers. The orders on how to deal with such people (not to mention their sacred icons and holy places of worship) are self-explanatory.

      From the Wikipedia entry on the Library of Alexandria:

      > The Royal Library of Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt was once the largest library in the world. It is generally thought to have been founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC, during the reign of Ptolemy II of Egypt, after his father had built what would become the first part of the library comp

      --
      "All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
    3. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Umm, there's several theories on how the Library was destroyed. Julius Ceasar being the earliest, a Christian Emperor in the middle, and the Muslim Conquest being the latest. In other words, we don't know how it burned, or even when - so let's not blame whoever we happen not to like at the moment, k?

    4. Re:interesting by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      The Irainian PM said something similar about the holocaust.

      Next thing you know you'll start denying the Inquisition as well.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    5. Re:interesting by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1
      Not all christians can be lumped together, not only that, before modern times the only histories of the world WAS religion, you can't blame humans for the times and ages and lack of knowledge of the age in which they were born.

      Bite me, You loving church burned people alive; why shouldn't I believe they burned libraries that contained pagan teachings? Especially when they recorded doing it.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    6. Re:interesting by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      In summary: The Christians burned, murdered and destroyed nearly everything. Now they claimed to be the preservers of culture and knowledge. Preservers in so much as they killed and burned everything they couldn't controll.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    7. Re:interesting by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Also you are NOT and opressed minority!

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  44. Excuse me by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Funny

    But why should Archimedes give everyone execute rights to his writing?

    1. Re:Excuse me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put what they learned from it to use?

    2. Re:Excuse me by cylcyl · · Score: 1

      Case of do as I say where I retain the right to change what I say?

      Hmmm... never knew that Archimedes was a politician

  45. I watched the webcast by crossmr · · Score: 1

    and to be honest I was a bit underwhelmed. I missed the first few minutes, so maybe there was something more interesting going on there. I was hoping at the end when they revealed the page they'd been working on, they might actually translate some of what was on the page, for those of us who don't speak ancient greek.

    1. Re:I watched the webcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. That was simply not very good television. Other things missing from the webcast: two or more of the members present having an affair, at least one hair-pulling, screeching spat, and an end of the season topless hot tub episode recalling the good old days that occured over the span of an hour of filming.

    2. Re:I watched the webcast by yourockmyfaceoff · · Score: 1

      The main reason the text wasn't translated live: their ancient Greek scholar, Reviel Netz, was out of the country during the imaging run. But, translation generally occurs after the images have been optimized anyway.

    3. Re:I watched the webcast by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Which may be, but it would have really made the webcast much more interesting. It was basically "here are a bunch of squiggles, you're the first in the world to see them".

      awesome.

    4. Re:I watched the webcast by yourockmyfaceoff · · Score: 1

      You have a point. It would have been ideal to have the scholar, but there was no other option. This is also a case of science not exactly making great live television... this imaging project has been going on for 10 years. Things happen slowly. But, all the same... this is a first-of-its-kind sort of thing. Just acquiring the images represents years of work.

  46. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by dargaud · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is from an assyrian stone tablet, circa 2800 bc... Puts things in perspective, doncha think ?

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  47. Re:Maybe they'll uncover Archimedes' long-lost pro by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Yes, but will they find his lost writings about quantum gravitation?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  48. Re:Maybe they'll uncover Archimedes' long-lost pro by Krakhan · · Score: 1

    Yes, indeed, just like his long lost proof of the Riemann Hypothesis...

  49. Re:The proper way to write this is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they vote for Bush and support a terrorist state such as Israel, they are forcing their religion on everyone.

  50. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by black+mariah · · Score: 0

    Actually... nobody knows where the fuck it came from.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  51. Earlier work covered on NOVA by cbrandtbuffalo · · Score: 1

    Some other cool info on this story was covered on a episode of PBSs NOVA.

  52. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering how bad the Dark Ages were, and what people in Greece had before then, he probably had a point.

  53. Doc deleted from parchment really ever deleted? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    We all delete hard disk files, but they are never really completely deleted unless overwritten and then there may be some magnetic trace that some forensic dude could lift.

    Just thing of it -- you can't delete a doc from parchment either without some CSI guy scanning it back in.

  54. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Considering how bad the Dark Ages were, and what people in Greece had before then, he probably had a point.

    And the end of Greece to boot.

  55. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by zenhkim · · Score: 1

    "Yup, them crazy, dumb kids don't know up from down, spend way too much time playing games, dancing around, getting drunk, having loose sex, and are bringing down everything we worked so hard for to wrack and ruin...."

    [wry grin]

    I don't remember which philosopher it was (Seneca?) but he pretty much expressed the above sentiments about what he lamented as the unthinking, reckless youth of his time, complaining at length that they were obssessed with pleasure-seeking at the cost of thinking and contributing to the greater good. He concluded that all was lost, and that civilization would decline and collapse.

    The civilization he was referring to was none other than the Roman Empire. Admittedly, his prediction proved to be correct ...though it would take about 500 more years for the empire to actually fall!

    Personally, I'd argue that he was right, but for the wrong reason -- it's all too common for older generations to look down upon and condemn the young, usually for no other crime than the fact that the newer generations are different and do things their own way. Then there's Arthur C. Clarke's take on the old-versus-young rivalry: "...the old are often insanely jealous of the young." (The Sentinel)

    I suspect that more than a few of us here have similar feelings on the issue, which probably explains the use of phrases such as "the Bad Old Days" and "the Dark Ages".

    --
    "All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
  56. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

    Argh damnit! Why does this lie keep getting perpetuated?

    Seriously, try to find any source for that. Archimedes didn't even write like that (even translated). That 'quote' is only about 50 years old - not a few thousand. It's a urban legend that has been shown to be wrong over and over.

  57. Your argument relies on hindsight by Solandri · · Score: 1
    That would be a valid argument for not deleting a hard drive that had belonged to Stephen Hawking.

    No, it would be like throwing away your copy of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" because your copy is dog-eared and you can always order another from Amazon. Likely at the time there were mutliple copies of Archimedes' work around, and this one was considered unimportant for that reason (the parchment was literally more valuable than the information it contained).

    What makes it important to us is that it happens to be the only copy which survived. The monk at the time had no way of knowing that his copy would be the only one which survived. Same reason there are only about a dozen Honus Wagner baseball cards in good condition. Nobody at the time knew that baseball cards would become a multi-million dollar collectibles industry, and that this particular card would be so valuable.

  58. Dear aunt by magetoo · · Score: 1

    But might be useful using some form of automatic system to at least provide an "early draft" of what has been written. That would at least be useful in keeping the public informed on the goals of the project, and let's set so double the killer delete select all.

  59. Re:The proper way to write this is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Fuck off, bigot. You're just as bad as Christians who try to force their religion on you, unlike the vast majority of them who don't.

    Funny you should mention christians not trying to force religion on me. The other day I was in the parking lot of an army post, and 3 of them attempted to convert me. Suffice to say, they failed, and became angry when I tried in return to share my view that Jesus did indeed exist, but should not be worshipped any more than any other schitzophrenic cult leader that existed at any other point in history. They did not seem to like this, as after i got to my car I was followed by a van with those 3, and 2 others in it - I assume from their same primitive cult known as "Christianity". Once I got on the highway they attempted to run me off the road, however they were not willing to scrap paint as I was, proving that I was much more capable of pushing them over into a support for an overpass. I'm not sure if they are ok or not, but I assume they have choosen to forgive, since such things seem so greatly apparent in their religion - or maybe they don't care if they are correct and are with their savior drinking some koolaid ready to move on to the next afterlife past the one they are presently in.
  60. You keep using that word. by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

    I do not think it is spelled the way you think it is spelled.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  61. meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical response by the religious types,
    gloss over any rational thoughts with
    mass produced prayers...

    Remind you of any current political situations, worldwide?

  62. his writing is hard to understand.. because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its all Geek to me!

  63. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nah..older generations look down on them because the younger generation is full of idiots. The older they get, the more that are culled.

  64. Archimedes revealed already by freedom_india · · Score: 1
    Archimedes "revealed" himself already to a FULL court shouting eureka.,..

    Have our scientists proven that only now?

    Boy they better start finding solutions to world problems than proving archimeded revealed himself. Else they wouldn't get Bush funding...

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  65. Archimedes who? by bdulac · · Score: 1

    Who cares about this Arechemedes guy? What about the prayers the monk was trying to write? Doesn't he get some kinda credit here for being resourceful? I think these scientists are missing what's really important here...........as usual.

    --
    Peace is not the absence of trouble but the presence of God.
  66. Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1
    I searched for this quote and found lots of references to it being on an Assyrian clay tablet from 2800 BC. I didn't find any hard evidence like an encyclopedia entry or a page at a reputable historical site.

    However, I also was not able to find any reference to this on snopes.com or any page describing how this is an urban legend.

    Does anyone have any hard references either way?

    Regardless of the veracity of this quote, I did find a page describing similar quotes about Socrates. So, even if the original quote isn't a true quote, there are certainly similar examples that show the same silly "kids these days blah blah blah" mindset.

  67. I don't believe in any archaelogy after year 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the pendulum has swung far back again from the other side when science shook up the theocracy. Yeah, so let them sit on their primary sources in their councils, not posting original copies online.

    No no paranoid conspiracy.

    mod = fnord. shake shake.

  68. Eureka? Archimedes? I got so excited... by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    I thought you guys were talking about a Sci-Fi show :-(

  69. -1 TROLL... way to go, ignorant & naive as you by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    No. Beyond Allegro not much worthwhile has found it's way into the public so see if YOU (ignorant loudmouth) can get me
    the images of the orginal dead sea scrolls then. Other than that all you could do was mod me -1 troll, Wow.
    impressive.

    I have the impression you were going to look in the Barnes & Nobles esoteric new age section.

  70. Re:The proper way to write this is: by LocalH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then that is a problem with those particular people, and not "Christianity" as a whole. I'm not a religious person myself, but I've known many such people and none of them ever forced any belief on anyone. Your anecdote means nothing, and neither does mine. It just shows that you painting "Christianity" with that broad brush is just the same as "Christians" painting all of those who aren't "Christian" with the same brush.

    --
    FC Closer
  71. Proves erasing parchment not secure by ross.w · · Score: 1

    if you want to hide what you wrote, you'll have to burn it to hide the evidence.

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  72. Archimedes' Palimpsest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poster makes it sound like Palimpsest was the title of a work by Archimedes.

    In fact, Palimpsest is the technical term for a sheet of paper or parchment that contains several layers of writing one on top of the other, with the older layers often scraped blank with a knife before being overwritten.