Texas Site Pushes Back Known Settlement Date For North America

Velcroman1 writes "The discovery of ancient stone tools at an archaeological dig in Texas could push back the presence of humans in North America, perhaps by as much as 2,500 years. The find was located 5 feet below materials left by the well-known Clovis culture, which was once thought to have been the first American settlers around 13,000 years ago. It was 'like finding the Holy Grail,' Waters said in a telephone interview. To find what appears to be a large open-air campsite 'is really gratifying. Lucky and gratifying.'"

Comments

Too bad

[spiffmastercow]

Too bad the Texas text books state that this is 7000 years before God created the Earth.

Re:Too bad

[jovius]

Perhaps they found the tools of GOD?!

Re:Too bad

[blair1q]

Frankly, if the Texas Democratic Party can't take the buffoonery of the Texas Republican Party and make votes out of it, then they deserve what they get.

Re:Too bad

[zixxt]

I for one like Texas text books at least the Texas history books are not racist anymore by way of exclusion. They made American History books include more early and essential Black and Native leaders and figureheads than in past textbooks.

Re:Too bad

[spiffmastercow]

Frankly, if the Texas Democratic Party can't take the buffoonery of the Texas Republican Party and make votes out of it, then they deserve what they get.

They have Democrats in Texas??

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Kunte receives five lashes on Monday and two lashes on Wednesday, how many thanks does he give to his master?"

Re:Too bad

[SydShamino]

People live in Austin, yes.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Kunte receives five lashes on Monday and two lashes on Wednesday, how many thanks does he give to his master?"

His name is "Toby"!

Re:Too bad

[bpfinn]

I think I'm the only one. Every election is like a Washington Generals game.

Re:Too bad

[hondo77]

Aren't you forgetting about the buffoonery of the elecorate?

Re:Too bad

[Pawnn]

Denny Crane at your service!

Re:Too bad

[brian1078]

People live in Austin, yes.

you call that living?

Re:Too bad

[fishbowl]

Is there an actual Earth science textbook that puts forth a young Earth creationism theory? (ISBN please?)

Re:Too bad

[ackthpt]

Perhaps they found the tools of GOD?!

More like BP

Re:Too bad

[OakDragon]

Too bad the Texas text books state that this is 7000 years before God created the Earth.

Cite?

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it never ceases to amaze me that there are links to the fox news site for science-related articles. Yeah, the same fox news that panders to those who are most hostile to science/scientific discovery.

The obvious conclusion to this apparent paradox is that your assumption is wrong.

I doubt you'll admit it, however. :P

Re:Too bad

[Remloc]

Many parts of Dallas swing Democrat as well. (I live there).

Of course, most TX Democrats would be considered Independents anywhere but TX or UT.

Re:Too bad

[elrous0]

at least the Texas history books are not racist anymore by way of exclusion

Yep, now they include both kinds of music: country *and* western.

Re:Too bad

[elrous0]

Ah shucks, teacher, that's a trick question. Kunte thanks him *every* day of the week.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

People live in Austin, yes.

you call that living?

outstanding living, as a matter of fact.

actually, it's the only place in Texas worth living.

Re:Too bad

[DigiShaman]

mini-San Fran is home to many "star children" of Texas.

Re:Too bad

[blair1q]

But that's a defining characteristic of electorates. It's why the word "idiot" has the etymology it does.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah they found the tools of the people who created god

Re:Too bad

[Martin Blank]

A friend and his wife moved to a town outside of Austin, in part because of the lower cost and because they were told by locals that the town had a liberal population, important since they were coming from San Francisco. Several friends and I (including some people who live in Texas) tried to explain that a Texas liberal and a California liberal (particularly a Bay Area liberal) were not even remotely the same thing. They moved back a year later after deciding that Texas wasn't for them.

Re:Too bad

[spiffmastercow]

Too bad the Texas text books state that this is 7000 years before God created the Earth.

Cite?

You want me to cite a joke?

Re:Too bad

[meerling]

I lived in Austin for a year. The stupidity level was worse than radiation at Chernobyl. Austin is not, in my opinion, a place worth living in.

Re:Too bad

[FatdogHaiku]

http://xkcd.com/224/

Re:Too bad

[marblesbot]

Anybody who uses a cable news channel as part of their argument in politics and religion must be a damn genius! Especially the FoxNews haters who think Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly don't have talk shows but actually report news. I actually get all my news on current events from John Stewart and Steven Colbert. Oh, and The View.

Re:Too bad

[marblesbot]

You assumed I was talking about you. I was just making a broad statement. I think we have the same opinion of "news". If you fall into the category I described, that's unfortunate for you. If not, you shouldn't be so defensive. I actually haven't watched John Stewart in years, either. I haven't watched much of Steven Colbert's show, just some of the other ridiculous stuff he's done. I like that he remains in character ALL THE TIME. Of course, that could turn into something more than a joke eventually. I doubt I could ever actually make it through ANY of The View. I did watch when Bill O'Reilly made an appearance on that show, though.

Re:Too bad

[Nyder]

You want me to cite a joke?

When it's a ethnic and culturalist slur, yes.

Texas is a cultural slur against other Americans.

Re:Too bad

[MoeDumb]

Or, too bad their dating methodology is flawed.

Re:Too bad

[Black Parrot]

Frankly, if the Texas Democratic Party can't take the buffoonery of the Texas Republican Party and make votes out of it, then they deserve what they get.

The same can be same about national politics. But Democratic politicians are too stupid and/or gutless to make hay out of it.

If the typical D politician had half the brains & balls of the typical R politician, this would be a very different country.

Re:Too bad

[Crudely_Indecent]

Have you ever been to Texas? Our textbooks say no such thing.

Re:Too bad

[drinkypoo]

I lived in Austin for a year. The stupidity level was worse than radiation at Chernobyl. Austin is not, in my opinion, a place worth living in.

I lived in Austin for a year and a half. The weather was worse than living at Chernobyl, that's for sure. Other than that, Austin is pretty great if you live within the city limits, and are capable of not talking like a fag when you go outside of them. I'm a big white guy (in spite of having a Mexican surname and two saints for first names) and I can sound like anybody I like so I did just fine no matter where I went in Texas. Austin has numerous incredible advantages including a live music scene that is the envy of basically anywhere else in the world, and really amazing food everywhere. Unfortunately, it has really amazing food everywhere. I gained 130 lbs in that time. I was depressed over some shit that had nothing to do with TX most of that time, though.

I stand by what I said about the weather, which is nice for about two months of the year, during the transition from too hot to too cold, and of course the other one, from too cold to too hot. Also, Texan drivers are asshole fuckwad dipshits. You think they're bad in Southern California? You have not seen shit yet. If there's a turn signal on it's because it's broken. If you put your signal on they will move to lock you out of the lane twice as fast as they will in Cali. They are basically the same anywhere you go in Texas, and I've been nominally everywhere (of any size, and through tons of towns of no size at all.)

There are some great things about Texas, but basically all of them make you fat. I love the women of Texas, but I think that has to do with their reaction to a man with some culture someplace other than between his toes, who doesn't find jokes about beating people up to be funny, and so on.

Here's a tiny, illustrative story about Texas to wet your whistle with. I was at a party in College Station where Texas A&M is located; UT students I was acquainted with tended to refer to it as "Sheepfucker U" but they have a famous rivalry between them. We decided to go eat at Denny's because we were classy like that. I was dressed fairly ordinarily in all black but I was with a pretty wild group including a girl in a kimono and guys wearing shiny shit, maybe even a guy in a skirt. Not the kind of group that is typically well-received in Texas, I will grant you, but here's the good part: As we walk into the restaurant three stereotypical cowboys are sitting near the door and as I go by (the last one in line of course) one of them sticks his head up and says "I'll suck your dick if you suck mine." And he's not offering, he's trying to start a fight.

Now, I'm a pretty easygoing type in general. You can't tell from my posting style because I'm regularly taking a gigantic shit on someone for some perceived insult. You know what they say about nerd rage. In this case I retained my nature and I looked down and said to him "Sir, you are quite the comedian" and then went to my table and forgot all about them; I was facing another direction. We were there for about an hour and a half and apparently those guys were there for about an hour of it waiting for us to leave so they could start a fight. Our waitstaff told us this after they had departed because they were concerned about us, though they needn't have been. I can lift and throw idiots of their size.

Now, in Austin they have a gay kicker bar called the Rainbow Cattle Club. Or they did, I dunno, I'm not that in touch with the gay scene anywhere, and especially not there. I'd bet money that more than one slashdotter is, though. I have a friend I could ask if it matters. :)

Unless you are a white-skinned BBQ addict, avoid Texas.

originals?

[Anonymous Coward]

they better not open the Pandorica or the Daleks will really invade this time around.

Well, that's sad.

[StefanJ]

I sign on to make a wise-ass comment about creationism and Texas and find two others beat me too it.

Either /. commenter creativity has hit a new low, or Texas's reputation is so overpowering that such jokes are inevitable.

Re:Well, that's sad.

[Rinnon]

Either /. commenter creativity has hit a new low, or Texas's reputation is so overpowering that such jokes are inevitable.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Re:Well, that's sad.

[H0p313ss]

Either /. commenter creativity has hit a new low, or Texas's reputation is so overpowering that such jokes are inevitable.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

But does it run Linux?

Re:Well, that's sad.

[morgaen]

That, my friend, is called an inverse whoosh.

Re:Well, that's sad.

[AdamThor]

Headline: Post Pushes Back Known Wise-Ass Comments About Texas Date For Slashdot Story

Re:Well, that's sad.

[PPH]

Its like trying to get first post but finding that someone has beat you to it. With an "In Soviet Russia..." line to boot.

Re:Well, that's sad.

[desdinova 216]

Wouldn't an inverse woosh be a thud?

Re:Well, that's sad.

[Black Parrot]

Wouldn't an inverse woosh be a thud?

No, it would be a "shoe".

Clovis humor

[snsh]

The Clovis kids were probably just playing a practical joke 10,000 years ago, burying pottery five feet under, to confuse the archaeologists.

Indiana Korg and the Charred Stick

[blair1q]

So the Clovis culture was one day's easy digging away from being the first archaeologists?

Re:Until the next discovery

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Are you charging the archaeologists with falsifying data? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're doing, and if so, you'd better contact the Texas A&M ethics board with your allegations. If you're not willing to do that, and provide evidence, you should probably just STFU.

Settlements

[HikingStick]

It's nice to read about a settlement that has nothing to do with a lawsuit.

Re:Settlements

[EkriirkE]

With Texas in the same sentence, no less. I was trying to wrap my head around a publicized patent suit so famous it didn't need to be named in the headline.

Re:Settlements

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what web-site in Texas would have the power to push back the legal settlement date of something that affected the entirety of North America.

God, I am really starting to hate living in this world of lawsuits.

Interesting story, terrible headline

[MrEricSir]

"Known settlement date"? What the hell does that even mean? Perhaps "date of first known settlement", but come on. Even if the story is filled with grammatical problems, at LEAST check the headlines before you hit submit.

Re:Interesting story, terrible headline

[nitehawk214]

"Known settlement date"? What the hell does that even mean? Perhaps "date of first known settlement", but come on. Even if the story is filled with grammatical problems, at LEAST check the headlines before you hit submit.

Some site in Texas sued all of North America, and North America is settling. However, the settlement date is being pushed back from the known value.

Re:Interesting story, terrible headline

[MrEricSir]

I suppose you're right, the grammar is fine. But that doesn't mean it makes sense.

Re:Interesting story, terrible headline

[Chris Burke]

The grammar, syntax, and semantics are all perfectly correct. It makes sense.

It's possible you were confused by the existence of alternate definitions of some of the words. That is perfectly normal in English (completely unambiguous language is a rare exception) and indeed the majority of natural languages. Context is what makes distinguishing possible. I believe there was sufficient context in the headline to distinguish. Most other definitions of "settlement" make no sense in the context of "North America". However it is possible that you were still momentarily confused. This is not uncommon at all, does not indicate that the headline is wrong, or that you cannot read, and should just be taken in stride.

Re:Interesting story, terrible headline

[MrEricSir]

There are other ambiguities with the headline that makes it confusing.

The site isn't what did the pushing. It was the discovery of it. The headline would have made a lot more sense if it had said:
"Discovery of Texas site pushes back known settlement date for North America."

"Known settlement date" could be today. There is a settlement in North America today, right? So it needs to specify that it was the FIRST known settlement. You could argue that since we're pushing it back, that must mean it's the first, but I don't think that's a good assumption.

Re:Interesting story, terrible headline

[Chris Burke]

The site isn't what did the pushing. It was the discovery of it.

Everything is conditional on knowledge. The site's existence is what pushed the date back, but we only know of its existence because we discovered it. In that sense, "known" in the headline is implied and thus redundant. But okay.

"Known settlement date" could be today. There is a settlement in North America today, right?

The settlement date would be today if someone was settling today. And indeed, someone probably is settling in North America as we speak. For them, that would be their settlement date. It would not be the settlement date for North America, as North America is already settled.

When talking about the settlement of a place, you only discuss it being settled if it was not already -- or at least wasn't settled by people you recognize as important if you're say Europeans settling America or other examples. But even in that case you wouldn't say Europeans settled America, after Europeans had already settled America. That makes no sense. The hypothetical people settling in North America today -- they settled in North America, they did not settle North America. Do you see?

So it is a good assumption that "known settlement date" implies the first known settlement, because after that it was already settled. The date of the previous oldest known settlement in North America is no longer the settlement date of North America -- by the time that settlement came around, North America was already settled.

Would it always be used that way? No, but such is language. But if you weren't using "settlement date" in that way, that's when you might want to take more care to make it clear what you meant.

Like if you told me that you believed that North America was settled only 400 years ago, and then when I expressed incredulity you went "Ha! I meant settled by Dutch immigrants!", that would be a case of being misleading and I might have to cut off your hand (erm... that was supposed to be an xkcd link but I can't find the right one... nevermind about the hand thing I wouldn't do that).

Re:Science in Texas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone in Texas still believe in science?

Lots of people in Texas believe in science.

It's the ones who don't believe in science who make the front page on Slashdot.

Misleading headline

[RoverDaddy]

I expected an article about some Texas-based website pushing back the settlement date for some kind of copyright violation class action lawsuit affecting North American users only (at least the known ones).

Re:Until the next discovery

[compro01]

Well it's kinda impossible for new findings to push it forward. Any new findings will either be the same age or newer (and thus don't make the news) or they're older and push the date back.

Re:Until the next discovery

[rotide]

Just throwing this out there, but archaeologists are probably making discoveries _all_the_time_. You just hear about the ones that news sources pick up as, well, news worthy. Kinda like ones that show us we were here thousands of years before we previously thought. Nothing odd about that, in my opinion.

Re:Until the next discovery

[geminidomino]

I'm certainly not one to begrudge someone their cynicism, but I fail to understand what you're finding "interesting" about that. Of course the discoveries that make the news are the ones that set the date back further.

Finding tools from 1000BC might (or might not. IANAA) be a valuable find, but it's not news because we already KNOW there were people around earlier than that.

Re:Until the next discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!! Mental note to walk on egg shells when ever Daniel Dvorkin is around.

Or better yet, as with any debate, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As the claimant, the burden of proof is on you to show that a professional is falsifying data. If you're unable to do so, withdraw your claims.

I'm just saying that [logical fallacy]...

What are your credentials and what professional experience do you have as an archaeologist that you're able to make informed observations on the age of the artifacts that are uncovered?

Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[serbanp]

That theory has been long ago discredited. It's amazing that it still decorates US history books - is it because almost no one teaching this subject and the kids learning about it don't care at all?

Anyway, this finding helps debunking the mantra...

Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[camperdave]

Yes, didn't some Europeans boat along the edge of the Atlantic pack ice during the last ice age (pre-Bering strait land bridge) and land in Eastern North America? I thought the found some ceremonial spear points somewhere that matched ones in France, but predated the land bridge migration.

Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[demonlapin]

Please do enlighten us with more recent knowledge. I'm well away from archaeology; the last word I know is Jared Diamond's, which was: even if Clovis culture wasn't the first one in North America, it was the first widespread one, and so predecessors are merely interesting curiosities. Much like L'Anse aux Meadows: it's impressive that the Norse made it that far, but it didn't really go anywhere.

Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[marblesbot]

I wanted to tie in some sarcasm about them coming from the south and current US immigration fights, but I just couldn't piece anything together.

Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[Black Parrot]

That theory has been long ago discredited.

I don't think it has been as thoroughly discredited as you say. (Or maybe I should say, the discrediting isn't broadly enough accepted for you to state it as you did).

However, a steady sequence of anomalies has popped up, mostly in the past decade or so, so that people who argue for an earlier settlement are no longer dismissed as a lunatic fringe. I suspect there will eventually be a consensus on an earlier settlement, though it's too soon to say what the new mainstream view will state.

Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[Black Parrot]

Yes, didn't some Europeans boat along the edge of the Atlantic pack ice during the last ice age (pre-Bering strait land bridge) and land in Eastern North America? I thought the found some ceremonial spear points somewhere that matched ones in France, but predated the land bridge migration.

I don't recall about the spear points, but there is an oddity regarding a population-tracking mutation that occurred in Europe showing up among the native American populations. And just those in the eastern part of North America, IIRC.

Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[Black Parrot]

Please do enlighten us with more recent knowledge. I'm well away from archaeology; the last word I know is Jared Diamond's, which was: even if Clovis culture wasn't the first one in North America, it was the first widespread one, and so predecessors are merely interesting curiosities. Much like L'Anse aux Meadows: it's impressive that the Norse made it that far, but it didn't really go anywhere.

The problem is, anomalous dates are found scattered all over the two continents, suggesting that the precursor population wasn't just a minor thing.

Assuming the anomalous dates are actually correct...

Re:Clovis people as oldest culture in Americas?

[serbanp]

Hmmm, I'm now reading a nice book named "1491" (see http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8). It has quite a few interesting bits of information about the Clovis precedence being challenged more and more, with some sites that seem to be older being located in the South America; if only one of these recent findings will become generally accepted, it will be enough to discard the Northern Passage theory of Siberia migration during the last ice age (which anyway sounds incredibly well timed to ring true).

Not a big breakthrough

[dkleinsc]

This is getting a lot more hype than it should: Several other sites, as well as genetic studies, have pointed to the existence of pre-Clovis human habitation in North America, and it had long been a working hypothesis for a lot of archaeologists who had been studying early American habitation.

The only really interesting question is what these tools most resemble: If they look like they're related to a culture not from Siberia, that would be a much bigger deal, since it would suggest migration from Africa or Europe or Polynesia.

Re:Not a big breakthrough

[Michael Woodhams]

If you proved they'd come from Polynesia, that really would be a big breakthrough - pushing back Polynesian settlement by more than 10,000 years. Easter Island and Hawai'i were settled within the last 2000 years.

Good lord...

[Chris Mattern]

They found ol' Dinosaur Dan!

"When y'all gonna let me outta here?"

Re:Good lord...

[RoverDaddy]

+1 for reference to such an old cartoon.

Re:Until the next discovery

[theunixbomber]

See.... observations on human behavior.

In the name of open and honest discussion I just admitted that my view might need some adjustment. Not sure how the makes me a "faggot".

Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC!

[billstewart]

The Texas find is interesting, because it's dealing with settlement of North America, but to me the India find in the same article was much more interesting. Acheulian stone tool designs in India at 1.5 million years BC, saying humans migrated out of Africa at least 100,000 years earlier than we thought! That difference is a lot longer than the time modern Cro-Magnons have been around.

Re:Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC!

[modmans2ndcoming]

Those humans would have been Homo Erectus, not Homo Sapiens.

Re:Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those humans would have been Homo Erectus, not Homo Sapiens.

Not necessarily.
Our knowledge is severely limited. We can NOT say "Homo Erectus did not co-exist with Homo Sapien", all we can say is "we don't have any evidence that they did." Those are not even close to being the same thing, and it's possible that tomorrow we'll find Sapiens from much earlier or Erectus from much later. It's also likely that there were other species which we have not, and probably never will, find direct evidence that they existed.

Re:Texas 13000BC, South India 1.5M BC!

[modmans2ndcoming]

we can say that the fossil record shows that homo Sapiens did not evolve until about 200K years ago.

so yeah,.... unless you find some Modern human remains that are 1.5 million years old... I'd say that I am correct.

*Western* Massachusetts

[billstewart]

The state doesn't all resemble Boston.

Only problem is

[snspdaarf]

The tools are stamped "Made in China"

Re:Only problem is

[DigiShaman]

Funny you should mention that. During the last Ice Age, humans did cross the land-bridge from Asia through Alaska back down through Canada, North and South America. I'm sure many Native American's mitochondrial DNA could be traced back to ancient Chinese decedents.

Re:Only problem is

[IrquiM]

Funny you should mention that - maybe he was making a joke, based on exactly that information and the fact that a lot of the tools currently being used are also made in China?

Re:Only problem is

[marblesbot]

They were just really cheap tools from China that looked like quality tools made in other places.

Re:Until the next discovery

[Nikker]

Click, click.

Texas A&M is not known for its digging efforts

[517714]

Bryan/College Station's worst disaster occurred when a small two-seater Cessna 150 plane, piloted by two Texas A&M students, crashed into a cemetery earlier today. Texas A&M volunteers have recovered 300 bodies so far and expect the number to climb as digging continues into the evening. The pilot and copilot survived and are helping in the recovery efforts.

I know it's old, but it never fails to get the goat of my Aggie buddies.

Dating methods?

[Shaiku]

I wish they'd post more information on how they dated the tools. It's not that I doubt the science, but the article makes it sounds like they dug 5 feet deeper and found tools, so they must be thousands of years older. I can almost hear Ray Comfort now saying "The Clovis people dug a 5-foot hole and buried their old tools. All these scientists found was an ancient landfill. Now look at this banana..."

Why does the quality of news articles always have to be so low? Off-topic now but: It's an online publication for cryin' out loud! A few extra words won't cost anything and grammar/spell check is just a friggin' button.

Re:Dating methods?

[Anonymous Coward]

New York Times explains: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/science/25archeo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Given the lack of sufficient organic material buried around the tools, the radiocarbon dating method was useless. Instead, earth scientists at the University of Illinois, Chicago, used a newer technique known as optically stimulated luminescence. This measures light energy trapped in minerals to reveal how long ago the soil was last exposed to sunlight.

Steven L. Forman, who directed the tests, said that 49 core samples were drilled from several sections of the sediments associated with the tools. When the data were analyzed, they consistently yielded the same ages. “This was unequivocal proof of pre-Clovis,” he said at the news conference.

Other scientists examined the flood plain geology at the site and determined that the clay sediments showed virtually no sign of having been disturbed during or after the burying of the tools. Lee C. Nordt, a geology professor at Baylor University, said that the traces of previous cracks in the sediment were few and too narrow to have allowed more recent artifacts from above to have settled into the deeper pre-Clovis layers.

Until recently, Dr. Waters said, archaeologists had probably overlooked earlier artifacts because the Clovis points are so distinctive and, in contrast, the pre-Clovis material has no hallmark style calling attention to itself.

“Finally, we are able to put Clovis-first behind us and move on,” he said.

Re:Dating methods?

[TeknoHog]

Wait, are you seriously asking Slashdotters for advice on dating?

Website pushing back settlement date?

[michelcolman]

For a minute I thought this was about some official Texas educational website changing the dates of historical events. And my first reaction was "o, those idiots, are they at it again?".

Re:Until the next discovery

[Quirkz]

And every time you find something you lost, it's always in the last place you look. It's not weird, it's just how it works.

Re:Until the next discovery

[Martin Blank]

Not necessarily. There could be some discoveries that alter geologic timetable presumptions, and thus move dates forward. It doesn't happen as often as it used to, and certainly not as drastically as before, but there are still occasional changes.

Re:The world's most trusted science reporting sour

[Opyros]

There are plenty of other articles on this story on the web; take your pick.

Re:The world's most trusted science reporting sour

[konohitowa]

And to make matters worse, it was an AP story! ZOMG!

Knee, meet Jerk.