Slashdot Mirror


Miniature Stonehenge Discovered In Wiltshire, UK

CmdrGravy weighs in with exciting archaeological news, "one of the most important prehistoric finds in decades" according to the article: a miniature Stonehenge a mile from the famous site. "Bluehenge," as the find is being called because of the assumed color of its (now-missing) stones, is believed to have been put up around the time of Stonehenge, 5,000 years ago. "All that remains of the 60-ft.-wide Bluehenge are the holes of 27 giant stones set on a ramped mount. Chips of blue stone found in the holes appear to be identical to the blue stones used in Stonehenge. The four-ton monsters, made of Preseli Spotted Dolerite — a chemically altered igneous rock harder than granite — were mined in the Preseli Mountains in Pembrokeshire and then rolled, dragged, and floated the 200 miles to the site on the banks of the Avon in Wiltshire."

152 comments

  1. Builders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it was built by little blue men instead of little green ones?

    1. Re:Builders by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to the article it was actually built by the same druids, they were just following a a set of instructions that said each stone should be nine spans high instead of the intended 9 cubits high. Needless to say, the head druid was furious at the unveiling ceremony and was reported to have had the stones crushed by a dwarf that wandered by.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:Builders by badzilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      But these were not the druids you were looking for...

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    3. Re:Builders by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      According to the article it was actually built by the same druids

      Sorry but druids had nothing to do with Stonehenge, they first appeared in England thousands of years after Stonehenge has erected.

      Druids: 200 BCE or earlier - 200 century CE
      Stonehenge: 3000-2100 BCE

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    4. Re:Builders by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2

      Druids: 200 BCE or earlier - 200 century CE Stonehenge: 3000-2100 BCE

      Actually, I have it from a very reliable source that the druids were around hundreds of years before the dawn of history.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    5. Re:Builders by bakdor · · Score: 1

      Something like this happened for real - the band Black Sabbath wanted a Stonehenge-style stage set for their 1983/84 tour, but someone got confused between imperial and metric measurements (I don't know, maybe they used metres instead of feet) and they ended up with a Stonehenge replica much larger than the original (and too large to fit in most venues). From what I could figure out, they still have it in a (big) warehouse somewhere. And apparently this was the inspiration for the Spinal Tap Stonehenge bit.

    6. Re:Builders by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    7. Re:Builders by n1ckml007 · · Score: 1

      hmm, sounds like a cleric-al error.

    8. Re:Builders by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      So it was built by little blue men instead of little green ones?

      It was built by Nac Mac Feegles?

      I musthave been a very big bottle of Special Sheep Linament to get them to finish something that impressive.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  2. Whistle while you work by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Miniature Stonehenge Discovered In Wiltshire, UK

    Built by dwarfs, I would presume.

    1. Re:Whistle while you work by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Nah, if dwarfs had built it they would've used gromril.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Whistle while you work by ari_j · · Score: 1

      A single dwarf, whose name was Mini-Dunker.

    3. Re:Whistle while you work by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      If they start looking carefully, they will probably find them everywhere! I suspect it was a Druid franchise arrangement, along the lines of MukDonalds.

    4. Re:Whistle while you work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bluestone = smurfs

    5. Re:Whistle while you work by niado · · Score: 1

      Miniature Stonehenge Discovered In Wiltshire, UK

      Built by dwarfs, I would presume.

      blood for the blood god

  3. Perhaps by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    it was the Nelwyns just making a play pen for a Daikini baby?

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  4. Spinal Tap references in... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...3...2...1...

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:Spinal Tap references in... by ari_j · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to make a Spinal Tap reference, but I prefer not to tread water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.

    2. Re:Spinal Tap references in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdotter nerdiness references in 3...2...1...

      And now for something completely different. Have you ever noticed how "Slashdotter" could almost pass for an Icelandish name?

    3. Re:Spinal Tap references in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works in sweden too. Slashdotter = Slashdaughter = the daughter of Slash

    4. Re:Spinal Tap references in... by skine · · Score: 1

      This is even sadder than the person who posts "F1RST!!" assuming that they actually are but end up being fourth, since this actually would be a worthwhile first post given two of the three afore you.

    5. Re:Spinal Tap references in... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      "I prefer not to tread water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry."

      And yet, you still post to Slashdot?

      There once was a girl from Nantucket...

  5. What do you mean, the "actual" piece? by darkhitman · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll bet it went something like this...

    Artist: Look, look. Look, this is what I was asked to build. Eighteen inches. Right here, it specifies eighteen inches. I was given this napkin, I mean...
    Ian: Forget this! F**k the napkin!!

    --
    Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
    1. Re:What do you mean, the "actual" piece? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      That tended to understate the hugeness of the object.

    2. Re:What do you mean, the "actual" piece? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    3. Re:What do you mean, the "actual" piece? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No the mini one was the original spec.

      StoneHenge is the the version with feature creep and user input.

    4. Re:What do you mean, the "actual" piece? by cocotoni · · Score: 1
      Not complete without the introduction story:

      Nigel Tufnel: In ancient times, hundreds of years before the dawn of history, an ancient race of people... the Druids. No one knows who they were or what they were doing...

  6. Recent Stonehenge Excavations by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Informative
    I live 50miles from Stonehenge but pass it regularly on my way to customers.

    Over the past two years ther have been a huge amount of archaeology excavation work in the Stonehenge area. Last year it was mostly close to the henge itself.

    This year the excavations have been off to the North West up the A344 closer to Airmans Corner

    http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=412500&Y=142500&A=Y&Z=120

    Even this article is published in the "Daily Wail" I suspect there is a lot more details to emerge over the coming months.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    1. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Pip, pip cheerio. Ring 'round for some scones and tea, eh guvnuh?

    2. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny

      You have to pass Stonehenge to reach customers?
      What do you sell to the ancient dead?

    3. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean; sconces?

    4. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You seem to have started on 'aristocrat', gone via 'edwardian mill-owner' and ended up on 'hackney carriage driver'.

    5. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do you sell to the ancient dead?

      Life insurance.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    6. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course the other local secret we don't tell people is that Stonehenge isn't half as good as Avebury, about 30 miles North of Stonehenge. If anyone is going to have a look at stone circles and old mysterious things. I would say that the better place is the one with the pub in the middle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    7. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Silbury Hill - that has the remains of a Roman Tourist Visitor Centre just to the east of it

    8. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You seem to have started on 'aristocrat', gone via 'edwardian mill-owner' and ended up on 'hackney carriage driver'.

      Yes, alas, a lot of Americans don't seem to grasp that there are many quite different British accents. It all gets lumped into one non-existent "British accent", presumably spoken by aristocratic Scottish chimney sweeps born to the sound of the Bow Bells in Victorian-era Calcutta, growing up as Oxford educated street urchins in the back-alleys of Serbiton and eventually settling down in the East End of Cardiff.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 1

      I asked about the Airman's Corner excavations at in the visitors' centre when I visited Stonehenge this summer. Apparently they're hoping *not* to find anything interesting there; they are looking for somewhere to put a new visitors' centre, and want to make sure that there won't be any archaeological remains under the car park.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    10. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by arethuza · · Score: 1

      To be fair, quite a lot of us Brits forget that there are many quite different native languages, let alone accents, on these fair and drizzly isles. English is arguaby the language of some fairly recent immigrants who were invited in to do a job and then didn't want to go home again afterwards.

    11. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by rve · · Score: 1

      To be fair, quite a lot of us Brits forget that there are many quite different native languages, let alone accents, on these fair and drizzly isles. English is arguaby the language of some fairly recent immigrants who were invited in to do a job and then didn't want to go home again afterwards.

      That could never happen again these days

    12. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I love that pub. Forget the stones, it's worth the bus trip all by itself.

    13. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I was watching an English comedian playing in Canada and he did the same, mixing a Texas drawl with a Georgia twang. And don't get me started on all those comedians doing Jamaican accents who mix up everything.

    14. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...with bad teeth.

    15. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, quite a lot of us Brits forget that there are many quite different native languages, let alone accents, on these fair and drizzly isles. English is arguaby the language of some fairly recent immigrants who were invited in to do a job and then didn't want to go home again afterwards.

      From another perspective, all the "native" languages are just the languages of somewhat less recent immigrants.

      All the native languages are in the Celtic family, which in turn is part of the larger Indo-European family. The Beaker culture people who built Stonehenge may have spoken a Celtic language, or Celtic languages may have come in later during the Iron age. Either way, before the Celtic languages Brits almost certainly spoke something completely different.

      Pity they didn't write things down, though.

    16. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Unicorn+Setu · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear, to Avebury being better than Stonehenge. When I was a lad you could walk in amongst the stones at Stoneghenge and climb on them, now you have to keep 50 yards away, what a shame. And Silbury Hill is just opposite West Kennet Longbarrow, which was started about 3500 B.C. Silbary, Avebury and West Kennet are all within about a 5 mile radius

      --
      Unicorn Setu. "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines".
    17. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Yes, alas, a lot of Americans don't seem to grasp that there are many quite different British accents.

      And many British don't seem to understand that many North Americans can peg a British person regardless of where he's from, or his specific accent?

      It's also easier to lump everyone together under the name of a country. I'm from Canada - Texas, Miami, or New York are all American accents. Since my accent knowledge is mostly from TV, it's safer to specify the country than specify a state and get it wrong.

    18. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I live 50miles from Stonehenge but pass it regularly"

      Now that's gotta hurt!

    19. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Yes, alas, a lot of Americans don't seem to grasp that there are many quite different British accents. It all gets lumped into one non-existent "British accent", presumably spoken by aristocratic Scottish chimney sweeps born to the sound of the Bow Bells in Victorian-era Calcutta, growing up as Oxford educated street urchins in the back-alleys of Serbiton and eventually settling down in the East End of Cardiff.

      Actually, that sounds a great deal like one of my great-great uncles who's father was Irish but grew up in Scotland. Joined the army and did a tour of duty in South Africa prior to the Zulu war, shipped back to Kent for a few years and then headed off to India to work as the Municipal Engineer for Rowalpindi. (Now in Pakistan)

      Great-great uncle left India to go to school and ended up teaching at Cambridge. I shudder to think what his children's accents sounded like. Irish-Scottish-South African-Indian-Cambridge?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    20. Re:Recent Stonehenge Excavations by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Grateful Dead albums !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  7. Well, they intended it to be big... by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    Well, they intended it to be big, but the designers got the signs for feet and inches mixed up.

    --
    This sig is false.
    1. Re:Well, they intended it to be big... by Adaeniel · · Score: 1

      Did these designers go on to work for NASA?

    2. Re:Well, they intended it to be big... by Animixer · · Score: 2

      Did these designers go on to work for NASA?

      No, but I think they did some work once for Spinal Tap.

      off-topic: One of many reasons IRIX was cool -- run audiopanel with the -spinaltap option. All volume controls go to 11! There. I have given away my big secret.

      btw if my sig doesn't make sense try it on HP-UX 10.20 or so.

      --
      man tunefs | grep fish
    3. Re:Well, they intended it to be big... by n1ckml007 · · Score: 1

      no, it was a clerical error.

  8. Ancient Gods by cjfs · · Score: 2, Funny

    No one knows what gods they worshipped, but the alignment of Stonehenge to the solstice shows that the Sun - and maybe the Moon - was important.

    Looking at the monument and knowing what it would take to build it, I think it's obvious.They may have worshiped the Sun, but they prayed to Joe Pesci.

    1. Re:Ancient Gods by ari_j · · Score: 1

      No one knows who they were, or what they were doing there.

  9. Logistics by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    I find it absolutely amazing that people 5000 years ago were able to move 4000 kilo rocks over hundreds of kilometres of landscape.

    1. Re:Logistics by cjfs · · Score: 1

      I find it absolutely amazing that people 5000 years ago were able to move 4000 kilo rocks over hundreds of kilometres of landscape.

      It was definitely an achievement

    2. Re:Logistics by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's only a model.

    3. Re:Logistics by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      My guess is that it was an ancient tourist trap.

      Soon they'll dig up a dunk tank and other related stuff. "Come to Stonehengeland! See, um, rocks! They're not quite as big as the real thing, but they're still pretty bitchin'!"

    4. Re:Logistics by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's amazing what you can achieve with a limitless amount of slave labour and no planning regulations to hold you back.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    5. Re:Logistics by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I am not convinced the labour supply was limitless. A lot of manpower was needed for hunting, agriculture, building shelter, raising children, etc. I imagine that the people transporting these rocks may have spend their entire short lifespans on that one job.

      So what economic structure ensured that they had food to eat?

    6. Re:Logistics by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      Another amazing thing is that there used to be a giant ditch surrounding Stonehenge that was dug out by hand to a depth of twenty-five feet or so.

      But the really amazing thing is that the giant stones were placed there several hundred years after the ditch was dug. So, they not only had to move these huge, heavy stones across the UK, but then had to go down and up a big friggin' ditch.

      The theory is that it's the location that's important, not the stones. The stones are just markers.

    7. Re:Logistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Beijing olympics was an impressive event, wasn't it?

    8. Re:Logistics by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's amazing what you can achieve with a limitless amount of slave labour and no planning regulations to hold you back.

      Yes, because (a) the population of the world 5,000 years ago was infinite and (b) planning regulations have always been the single greatest impediment to human progress.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Logistics by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Isn't it obvious?

      More slaves, to work the farms.

      Just like XML and violence, if it doesn't solve your problem, just add some more!

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:Logistics by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You should have gotten a +5 for that. Or a dry-cleaning bill at least.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  10. Just discovered? by Tibia1 · · Score: 1

    So the site was only 1 mile away from Stonehenge, along a path directly from it, with 27 holes each made by a 4 ton rock? The holes must have been preserved seeing as the blue remains of the rocks still remained in them. What's next, additional pyramid discoveries?

    1. Re:Just discovered? by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      I was thinking something along the same line.

      Maybe stonehenge is part of a complex of structures? Maybe an ancient city? Or a temple complex...

    2. Re:Just discovered? by johnw · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's a slightly earlier monument, and its blue stones were recycled when a larger one was built nearby? People have been nicking stone from existing constructions to use for new ones for millennia.

  11. The fabled gift shop by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Funny

    At last! The fabled gift shop of the druids has been found!

    1. Re:The fabled gift shop by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The druids (although we don't know much else about them) were several thousand years later.

    2. Re:The fabled gift shop by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      ... but gift shops were contemporary to ancient britons?

  12. 4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by sixwings · · Score: 4, Funny

    The four-ton monsters, made of Preseli Spotted Dolerite â" a chemically altered igneous rock harder than granite â" were mined in the Preseli Mountains in Pembrokeshire and then rolled, dragged, and floated the 200 miles to the site on the banks of the Avon in Wiltshire."

    Four-ton stones are miniscule compared to the 50-ton trilithons at big Stonehenge or the over 1100-ton Stone of the South at Baalbek in Lebanon.

    It boggles the mind that primitive people would want to erect such monumental structures when smaller stones would have been orders of magnitude easier to cut and transport. As the Romans, the Aztecs and the Maya have shown, it's possible to create impressive monuments with smaller stones. In my opinion, some among the ancient priesthoods had secret knowledge of a technology that allowed them to levitate and transport huge stones over great distances. Too bad they died without leaving a record of it. I have excellent cause to believe that the secret of levitation will be uncovered soon.

    There is clear evidence that we are swimming in an ocean of clean energy, lots and lots of it. A new form of transportation and energy production technology will arrive soon, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel.

    The Problem With Motion

    1. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      anyone follow that link? his response to comments on his blog is illuminating

      I had no idea the timecube guy had a separate blog and posted on slashdot

    2. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by sixwings · · Score: 1

      LOL. The Timecube guy, eh? I ressemble that. At least my comment was not modded -1 Troll. Not yet anyway. A Funny rating is better than nothing.

    3. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call the two linked articles, especially the blogspot post total and utter BULL MANURE [ENHANCED].

      Maybe I did miss the joke, so if that's the case, can somebody explain it to me?

    4. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by sixwings · · Score: 1

      You know what they say about opinions, don't you? Coming from an attacker who doesn't have the gonads to identify him/herself, that's not exactly very brave of you, is it? Come on, don't be ashamed of who and what you are. I'm the crackpot (LOL) at the link and I'm not ashamed of it.

    5. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm too lazy to make an account here. And no, I don't mean to insult your theories, I'll just tell you what my physics professors at the university have told me before "You mean to say that your 5 dollar research disproves years and millions of dollars worth of investigation?"

    6. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the old technology was huge monolithic building blocks (Windows) and the huge improvement was using tiny building blocks (Unix mindset)?

    7. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by sixwings · · Score: 1

      Wow. Gonads are rare in these parts. Who would've thunk it?

    8. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your Physics professor could be the reason years and millions of dollars of investigation hasn't yielded the same results as the 5 dollar research. I mean seriously, if findings are rejected because of the cost associated with the research, then there are problems.

    9. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by sixwings · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I wonder if Newton or Calileo would have objected to their work being valued at a mere 5 dollars worth. After all, they were up against centuries if not millenia of scientific research.

    10. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, no, just no, this is where i now step in.

      You are really citing the money issue?
      Seriously? A probable regular Slashdotter who has seen articles on groups of individuals creating things at significantly lower price points than huge companies devoted to creating such things?

      Also, citing the money issue is downright the most pathetic thing ever.
      Most things in human history were discovered by poorer people in their backyard, to use a slightly over-exaggerated metaphor.

      And finally, most people cling on to GR even though they KNOW it isn't correct.
      INFINITIES = WRONG, always.
      Don't even get me started on 0, Maths has ruined Physics.

    11. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      This guy got modded funny, but there's a nugget of truth in the greater turd.

      In science as a whole, and particularly fields like archeology, there seems to be a very unhealthy "not invented here" mentality. It's particularly evident in Egyptology, from what I've read: despite any evidence to the contrary, they insist upon primitive, labor-intensive, and often easily-explained-away methods of construction.

      Two examples are the Giza pyramid (ignoring the astounding geometric and architectural complexity which we can only explain by creating 'ancient rituals') and the famous granite sarcophagi also from ancient Egypt.

      The Giza pyramid has stones upwards of 60 tons and experimental 'rebuilds' at a smaller scale (1/8th rings a bell) have been attempted in modern times, using modern machinery - and failed. The mechanics of lifting or moving 60 tons simply can't be explained using modern science without completely rejecting the precepts of the field (and even then, it's a bit questionable).

      The sarcophagi I mentioned are multiple, identical boxes found at a single location. The contemporary explanation, as I understand it, is that they were pounded out by hand using basalt and maybe rubbed out with sand. Yet the inner corners show inexplicable marks consistent with what might occur if the boxes were cut today using modern machinery - and to an absurdly high precision, at that.

      These are things which simply don't make sense within our contemporary understanding. In the case of the large granite (etc.) pillars throughout the world, it would make sense that some machinery, of some sort, was employed. Having done a fair amount of "large heavy lifting" and seeing it take 6 people and a 1 ton motor to lift and maneuver a 1500lb, 4x8x8 stage prop, and then over 10 people to move it while on wheels on a flat, smooth surface, I'm highly skeptical of any claims to hemp ropes and wooden block and tackle being able to handle something of this scale. Possible, I suppose, but it seems just as likely that they might have invented internal combustion (or some other technology) and their lesser machines (the ones made from metal) have all since decayed - as to believe that a bunch of relative primitives could do something which a group of highly determined (and not particularly fond of failure - they were Japanese) engineers couldn't do with modern technology at a significantly smaller scale.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    12. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by porl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that was the least scientific 'scientific blog' i have ever read... with the obvious exception of timecube...

      you need to learn the physics you are debating, saying 'from my perspective' doesn't a theory make...

    13. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but implying that Unix rests on a older, massive foundation that Windows laid down is wrongity wrong.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    14. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said that metaphorically speaking:

      I postulated: Gravitation makes the universe expand and proceeded to explain. I downloaded a Newtonian Gravity Simulator that used regular floating point operations using the datatypes normally found on a 32bit computer. I placed a whole bunch of static objects at random positions and with random masses. After a while the objects were flying away from each other at high speeds. Repeating the simulation changing the initial conditions yielded the same results.

      Problems with this simulation:
      - At high gravitational potentials, Newtonian Gravitation doesn't hold. Example, the orbit of Mercury around the sun.
      - Lots of errors were introduced in the simulation by using regular floating point types and this error wasn't being compensated for.

      This, right there, is, metaphorically speaking, a 5 dollar research. It amounts to nothing and any results it yields are useless. Why? Because it is incorrectly done.

      Whereas I can build a good autonomous rover for Earth-like conditions for less than 200USD and make it a good machine is something completely different to downloading a program that doesn't follow the laws of physics and introduces lots of errors on its calculations, running five simulations on it and then call the resulting observations a valid theory of expansion of the universe.

    15. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      It's more likely that the technology of stone construction was simply forgotten than that there were some advanced machinery responsible. The Japanese engineers did not spend their whole lives thinking about these problems (and were not apprenticed during childhood to a craft developed over generations) and they were not the greatest intellects of their entire culture as the ancient engineers were. And how long did they try until they declared failure--how many decades?

    16. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The mechanics of lifting or moving 60 tons simply can't be explained using modern science without completely rejecting the precepts of the field

      Bullshit.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    17. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by maxume · · Score: 1

      The engineers tried a couple of times and stopped. Give them a few decades or centuries and I think they might exceed your expectations.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by sixwings · · Score: 0

      You need to be less of a pompous and condescending asshole. From my perspective, of course. LOL.

    19. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now why would a culture with access to unlimited energy go under?

      Except for the little problem of all the waste heat causing global warming, comdemning the planet to heat death - which clearly did not happen 5,000 years ago.

    20. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact is, we lose a large percentage of our knowledge - it doesn't take levitating rocks for this to be true.

      For instance - I'm into firearms, and a good friend of mine is quite fond of old English sporting arms. He has an English flintlock that is the absolute most amazing piece of engineering i have ever seen. The barrels are side-by-side and regulated - as in, you can put 2 rounds within 1" of each other at 100 yards with this thing. There are no companies that we know of making contemporary muzzle-loading weapons. Today's newly manufactured flintlocks are generally very touchy and unreliable, but the old ones are incredibly reliable; they had to be.

      As a society, we have forgotten how to make quality flintlock rifles, just as we have forgotten how to move gigantic stones by hand.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    21. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by porl · · Score: 1

      exactly my thought about you... you are of course entitled to your own opinion, and no one can stop you posting online about it.

      if, however, you start claiming things like "physicists are just as ignorant as the man in the street about the nature of motion", or "Yep, physicists do believe in magic even if they claim otherwise" then you had better have some damn good evidence to back your claims. if not, then you are just being a "pompous and condescending asshole" yourself when you post such drivel every chance you get on forums such as this.

      get some real evidence or go back to your blog and shut the fuck up.

      from my perspective, of course...

    22. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get some real evidence or go back to your blog and shut the fuck up.

      Who are you, the /. Mussolini? Fuck you. Causality is the sine qua non of science. Applying causality to motion is a simple thing that even children can do. If physicists cannot see that motion needs a cause, then they are stupid as shit. And so are you.

    23. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Now why would a culture with access to unlimited energy go under?

      Except for the little problem of all the waste heat causing global warming, comdemning the planet to heat death - which clearly did not happen 5,000 years ago.

      Obviously there was an Atlantic/Flood event that, um, put all their unlimited energy-producing fires out and drowned them all and made their books go soggy so we can't read them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being into firearms as you are, you should be aware that there are several, if not many, companies making "contemporary" muzzle-loading weapons and in the US most states have black-powder hunting seasons. Black-powder not necessarily equal to muzzle loading. Another reason for the lack of advances in muzzle loaders may be that breech loading was and is considered a tremendous advance in firearms of all calibers that made muzzle loading obsolete except as a hobby.

      I like Thompson Center myself, but just for fun.

    25. Re:4 Tons vs. 50 Tons vs. 1100 Ton by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I meant to imply contemporary rifles in the style of the weapons i was discussing. Of course there are muzzle-loaders being made today, but they are either niche (in the case of reproductions of classic arms), or designed for hunting.

      Also, I'm not aware of any hunting seasons that are open to black-powder weapons as such - if that were the case, I have a nice old .45-70 I'd love to take with me. Seasons are typically divided into archery, muzzle-loading/"primitive weapons", and modern gun. Black power cartridge guns are typically considered modern, regardless of age.

      Besides, I'm really not an avid hunter. I might actually hunt once every 3 or 4 years. I collect and shoot firearms for practical, recreational, and political reasons.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  13. Before Stonehenge... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Bluehenge," ... is believed to have been put up around the time of Stonehenge, 5,000 years ago.

    Before Stonehenge, there was Woodhenge and Strawhenge. (But a big bad wolf came along...)
    - Eddie Izzard

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Before Stonehenge... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Before Stonehenge, there was Woodhenge and Strawhenge.

      It was claimed that Tittyhenge was discovered, but it was a bust.
           

    2. Re:Before Stonehenge... by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

      ...there was Woodhenge...

      Yeah, I was there. The acid was awesome, man!

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    3. Re:Before Stonehenge... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Bluehenge is the one from the Bluetooth age

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:Before Stonehenge... by cynyr · · Score: 1

      and the druids were standing around saying, "this one and that one, can we swap them around?"

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    5. Re:Before Stonehenge... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the women kept changing their minds: "No, I think I want the big stone over there instead. It's mossy, and thus goes better with the fern."

    6. Re:Before Stonehenge... by Darby · · Score: 1

      I'd always heard it started with Blues Henge and then went to Rock Henge...Stone henge was just a mistranslation...

  14. But what's really cool is by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    the discovery of 13-inch Beatles nearby. Their best tune is "No. 3"

  15. Blueprint by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's blue and it's a small scale of the real thing.
    That's what we call a "blueprint".

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  16. They found another in Redmond, WA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's called Bluescreenhenge.

  17. Keeping Up With The Joneses by mindbrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't that just the way it goes, you put up a great circle of stones, your house smartly in the middle; the missus, the kids and the in laws are all finally giving you the praise you deserve, and what does your neighbour go and do?

    --
    ideopath @ play
  18. Spinal Tap's stonehenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a miniature stonehenge in This Is Spinal Tap? Who knew such a movie could be so prescient.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpaG-L0zTJ4&NR=1

  19. IBM? by TheCybernator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bluehenge? sounds like IBM made

    1. Re:IBM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It's huge, expensive, blue and doesn't do very much.

  20. Hogwash by P.+Legba · · Score: 1

    Rolled? Floated???

    Occam's Razor.

    They were simply transported there by the Ancients' extraterrestrial guides using their interstellar spacecraft.

  21. One of the most important finds ? have a look : by unity100 · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

    Its lowest layer is dated 9130-8800 BC. That's fucking 11,130 years ago. its the oldest place of worship. Also :

     

    Göbekli Tepe is the oldest human-made place of worship yet discovered.[2] Until excavations began, a complex on this scale was not thought possible for a community so ancient. The massive sequence of stratification layers suggests several millennia of activity, perhaps reaching back to the Mesolithic. The oldest occupation layer (stratum III) contains monolithic pillars linked by coarsely built walls to form circular or oval structures. So far, four such buildings, with diameters between 10 and 30m have been uncovered. Geophysical surveys indicate the existence of 16 additional structures.
     
    Stratum II, dated to Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) (7500 - 6000 BC), has revealed several adjacent rectangular rooms with floors of polished lime, reminiscent of Roman terrazzo floors. The most recent layer consists of sediment deposited as the result of agricultural activity.

    Moreover, this is more important - it seems to be the place where mankind first domesticated wheat :

    While the site formally belongs to the earliest Neolithic (PPN A), up to now no traces of domesticated plants or animals have been found. The inhabitants were hunters and gatherers who nevertheless lived in villages for at least part of the year.[7] Schmidt speculates that the site played a key function in the transition to agriculture; he assumes that the necessary social organization needed for the creation of these structures went hand-in-hand with the organized exploitation of wild crops. For sustenance, wild cereals may have been used more intensively than before; perhaps they were even deliberately cultivated. Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that its DNA is closest in structure to wild wheat found on Mount Karaca Da 20 miles away from the site, leading one to believe that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.[8]

    enjoy.

  22. Two words... by P.+Legba · · Score: 1

    Landing site.

    1. Re:Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah we have all read "A Trace of Memory"
      http://www.webscription.net/p-247-legions-of-space.aspx

    2. Re:Two words... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Landing site.

      Why would UFOs need a purpose built landing site? Don't they have inertial navigation?

    3. Re:Two words... by RDW · · Score: 1
  23. Re:One of the most important finds ? have a look : by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's almost twice as old as the earth!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. Oh I know what this is... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Its not uncommon when taking on a project, to first create a scaled down model first, so to help discover and work out project problems. To bad they can't find teh blue prints huh?

  25. slashdothenge more like by rarel · · Score: 4, Funny

    even back then they had problem with dupes. Dang.

  26. Dolerite: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That tough blue mineral that doesn't cop out when the heat's all about.

  27. Frigging obvious! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Smaller and nearby? It's the GPU!

    (Also, insert obligatory IBM/BlueHenge joke.)

    1. Re:Frigging obvious! by CompMD · · Score: 1

      No, its the math coprocessor. Now get off my lawn. :)

    2. Re:Frigging obvious! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Granted, it is a fairly old system after all. :P

  28. Henges? by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    How many more henges are we going to find? Why isn't the word henge used more in day-to-day conversation?

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:Henges? by Frogg · · Score: 3, Informative

      How many more henges are we going to find?

      evidence exists for literally hundreds and hundreds of henges across the UK - a lot of them don't have any stones (not because they've been removed, a lot of them just never had them) - the term 'henge' is generally taken to be a circular/oval bank and ditch earthwork.

      Why isn't the word henge used more in day-to-day conversation?

      ...uhm, maybe it's because in day-to-day conversation people don't generally talk about pre-historic / neolithic sites very much? (sorry, couldn't resist pointing out the obvious there! ;)

      people familiar with ancient / pre-historic sites do often use the term henge when talking about this kind of thing - i guess it depends on where you live, and who you speak with? -- i'm kinda assuming from your question that you likely aren't living in the UK (or France) where there are a lot of henges (and barrows and standing stones / stone arrangements) scattered all over the countryside - some are big and impressive, like Stonehenge (obviously), Avebury and Thornborough, all of which are in the UK, and Carnac in France -- whereas others are only known about because of circular markings left in farmers fields (often only visible from the air nowadays), eg. Bow Henge.

      hth

    2. Re:Henges? by Trip6 · · Score: 1

      The word henge has never come up here in CA in any conversation I've ever been in except as a reference to the infamous Stonehenge, and even then, I doubt very many people here know that the noun is henge and Stone is a modifier used to call out a specific henge.

      Thanks for the henge references - I shall seek them out on my next trip to Europe!

      --
      I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    3. Re:Henges? by Frogg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thanks for the henge references - I shall seek them out on my next trip to Europe!

      enjoy - there's lots to see! :)

      i might be wrong, but here in the UK the biggest concentration of neolithic sites is generally understood to be in the Wiltshire area - that's where you'll find Stonehenge (and its 'complex' / associated sites) and also Avebury and its 'complex' including Silbury Hill (plus lots of minor sites which are still interesting) - but there are also a lot of stone circles and henges in various parts of Scotland too.

      personally i'd like to see the stuff in France like the awesome stone rows at Carnac - which are not just fascinating, they're truly mind boggling to comprehend imo!!

      to be honest, sites that are simple henges - such as Thornborough in Yorkshire (which is undoubtedly of great significance), and many many others, aren't actually that interesting to visit - the more interesting sites are those which also feature standing stones. Avebury (and the sites in the surrounding area) is truly amazing - the henge is hundreds of meters across, and contains the whole village, pub and all! the stones are pretty huge, and the earthworks / bank and ditch is much bigger than that at Stonehenge - imo Stonehenge is only more impressive because of the trilithon arrangement of the stones. Silbury Hill (near Avebury) is (i believe) the largest man-made hill in Europe! - of course no one knows what it was for...

      be sure to check out the recent 'Time Team' TV programme's episodes on Stonehenge (and indeed any of their other episodes on neolithic/prehistoric sites) which i linked to in another post of mine - hopefully you can still watch these from the US and they've not limited viewing to the UK only.

      there's a wikipedia page on henges - though you've likely already seen that if you followed links from the pages i've already linked?

      (btw, i'm not after mod points - i already have excellent slashdot karma, and have had for years - i'm just providing this info because this is something that i'm truly interested in)

      have fun! :)

    4. Re:Henges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i said 'hopefully you can watch these from the US' - being a Brit with little knowledge of anything outside of the UK i'm assuming that CA is California? - perhaps wrongly? so apologies if CA is in fact an abbreviation for Canada (or somewhere else), i don't mean to cause any insult if i've got this wrong! :) x

      /frogg

    5. Re:Henges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      evidence exists for literally hundreds and hundreds of henges across the UK - a lot of them don't have any stones (not because they've been removed, a lot of them just never had them)

      Don't forget to add that a lot of the stones have been smashed up for building materials elsewhere, the early churches were particularly zealous in doing this.

  29. Re:One of the most important finds ? have a look : by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    9130 - 8800 BC? That is an important find! I remember when I was digging through information about older cultures out of boredom (I know...seriously) I was impressed that most of the oldest cultures documented extensively existed in Egypt and Asia (China, India, and even Japan). I had hard time finding any information about ancient European and Semitic cultures. That is pretty impressive that there is a temple predating the Egyptian civilization in Turkey. I wonder if any influence or link can be traced between it and the Phoenician culture...

  30. Hmmm by smoker2 · · Score: 1

    I disagree with the notion that the stones were dragged from Wales. Surely if the stone was so impressive, the henge would have been built near the actual source. The whole area would have been sacred, and mined into temples. Alternatively, there were ice sheets extending down pretty much as far as Wiltshire, certainly covering the Bristol Channel. The whole area was probably littered with drop stones brought from Wales, which have been spotted and collected by the ancient builders. And I'm pretty sure there was a TV program regarding Bluehenge some years ago. This is standard Daily Fail "news".

    1. Re:Hmmm by Vulch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately for your ice sheet theory, the large bluestones are all there is in the area. Glaciation would also have brought huge quantities of identifiable smaller bits right down to gravel size.

    2. Re:Hmmm by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's no reason to suggest they were dragged, mostly they were floated down over the Bristol channel and then probably across the flooded plains of Somerset. Wiltshire's only a short drag from there.

  31. Blue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the stones are no longer there, how do they know they were blue?

    And with absolutely no written records about Stonehenge dating to the time of it original use, scientists somehow know exactly how it was used and why. What arrogance.

    1. Re:Blue? by grikdog · · Score: 1

      I have no mod points to mod this up. But I would. Most archaeologists prefer to avoid clairvoyant claims about evidence.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    2. Re:Blue? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      They found chips of stone that are blue, that they assume are part of the stones that comprised the wholes structure.
       
      As for how and why it was used, that's still a mystery, but some ideas people float stand to reason.
       
      Just like the rest of science, we're not certain about the laws of physics, but from what we can tell, it makes sense.

  32. Stones are *missing* by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So how the hell can you be sure what they looked like? They could have been totem poles or something.. just happened to be arranged in a similar round pattern, which is most likely common for that era of man ( think sun/moon god worship ).

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Stones are *missing* by Frogg · · Score: 2, Informative

      i think they concluded the holes were sockets for stones for a number of reasons - one of which is because of the amount of chippings of Bluestone they found in the area, and another being that holes which have had stones in them have a variety of archaeological evidence to support such a conclusion, including the way the earth is packed, the way the hole is cut, and whether there's evidence for packing stones, etc, having been used to hold the stones in place.

      the combination of this kind of evidence plus the lack of evidence needed to support the hypothesis of wooden posts being in the holes (organic material would likely be left if wooden posts had been in the sockets) is generally how archaeologists draw their conclusions -- it's become quite a science over the years, and, as time passes, technological advances combined with a greater understanding gathered from other excavations/investigations allows them to build a better picture.

      they have found sites with sockets which they believe held wooden posts - so it's not as if they discount such a possibility outright, such things do indeed exist (see Woodhenge for example - but there are plenty of other sites which feature 'post holes', although not usually in large circular arrangements such as discovered at Woodhenge)

      of course none of these conclusions/hypotheses can be proven as totally and absolutely 100% accurate, and it is often the case that archaeologists will draw new conclusions in later years, as technology improves and more information is gathered from other digs - which is exactly what they've been doing with these recent excavations in the Stonehenge area.

      personally, i'm of the opinion that if they say they don't think it was wooden posts but it was stones, then they're likely right - they are experts after all, and they don't really just make this stuff up, it's based upon the evidence at hand at the site and the culmination of years of study and research across many similar sites.

      (in some ways it's like if i repair a pc, and tell my customer that i think it's a hard-disk failure - i've based my decision upon years of experience and the evidence at hand - in such a situation, ie. being the repair-man, i am the 'expert' in that equation - of course, Joe Public may say 'how do you know? it could be the motherboard or the power-supply or something' - and sure, it could be open to interpretation and later discoveries of related information, but i'm likely to be right)

  33. Re:One of the most important finds ? have a look : by telomerewhythere · · Score: 0

    Imagine, these people were worshiping crosses (or cross-like objects) long before "Christians" started to do so.

    From GP's cite on wikipedia:

    They soon discovered T-shaped pillars, some of which had apparently undergone attempts at smashing.[...]GÃbekli Tepe is the oldest human-made place of worship yet discovered.

  34. Channel 4's Time Team by Frogg · · Score: 3, Informative

    here in the UK Channel 4's "Time Team" covered some of the recent excavations in the Stonehenge area in a couple of episodes earlier this year - this includes the initial discovery of this 'Bluehenge' site, although when the programmes were made they had not got as far as finding the evidence for a complete henge at this site.

    check out the two 'specials' here and here. fwiw, the second programme is the more detailed of the two and covers more of the later discoveries.

    these recent digs are particularly interesting because they're the most up-to-date excavations to have taken place in the Stonehenge area so far, and they also include the re-excavations of older digs which took place before we had some of our modern techniques, technologies and understanding.

    truly fascinating stuff! :)

  35. re: Health uses by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    Consider:

    - Negative ions are good for health (a reference would be good here ready for challenging that; one I remember involved using a negative charge to prevent or treat gum disease in dentistry)
    - Negative ions are more common in flowing water; is Bluehenge & Stonehenge built over a lay line (Druid name) -aquifer (hydrogeological term)
    - Charge can be measured with a multimeter so try this: measure voltage with a node in each hand before and after:
    1) a brisk swim in the sea
    2) 10mins of Tai Chi
    3) A mountain climb
    - large masses, like big stones concentrate that negative charge with increased density moving charge from the underlying water to the air

    Why not:

    - delicately pick THOUGHT OUT holes in each stage of this idea
    - some references I can read about such as Electro/chemical/biological(sp?) charge
    - anything else you've heard on this subject

    I'm expecting quack remarks, which is fine but I hope there is some back up to it.

  36. Re:One of the most important finds ? have a look : by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

    I wonder if any influence or link can be traced between it and the Phoenician culture...

    There's no link. A LOT happened in the 5-6000 years between this and the time Phoenician culture arose (2000-1500 BC). I'm sure there was influence, but nothing you could trace directly. Nearly every culture in the region could claim the same influence, and there were a lot of them.

  37. Still no Spinal Tap joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may have been built for a rock music purpose.
    Heh, rock, get it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpaG-L0zTJ4

    1. Re:Still no Spinal Tap joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, fuck, I didn't check well. My bad.

  38. Re: Health uses by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Bleach is chock full of negative ions, I wouldn't recommend it as a health tonic.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  39. t shape stands for human by unity100 · · Score: 1

    t shapes are probably used for representing humans. ie, some of the shapes appear to be holding small animals under their 'arms'.

  40. Reminds me of that song from Ultima 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oddly enough, this article reminds me of that catchy tune "Stones" that David "Iolo" Watson (of origin systems) penned for the Ultima games. Years later, i found out that it actually had lyrics.

    Long ago ran the sun on a folk who had a dream
    And the heart and the will and the power:
    They moved the earth; they carved the stone; moulded hill and channeled stream
    That we might stand on the wide plains of Wiltshire

    Now men asked who they were, how they built and wonder why
    That they wrought standing stones of such size
    What was done 'neath our shade? What was pray'ed 'neath our skies
    As we stood on the wyrd plains of Wiltshire

    Oh what secrets we could tell if you'd listen and be still
    Rid the stink and the noise from our skirts
    But you haven't got the clue and perhaps you never will
    Mute we stand on the cold plains of Wiltshire

    Still we loom in the mists as the ages roll away
    And we say of our folk, "they are here!"
    That they built us and they died and you'll not be knowing why
    Save we stand on the bare plains of Wiltshire