Slashdot Mirror


Star Wars City Doomed By Sand Dunes

An anonymous reader writes "The buildings and set of the fictional city Mos Espa are set to be swallowed by migrating sand dunes in the Tunisian desert. From the article: 'Ralph Lorenz, from Johns Hopkins University, US, together with Jason Barnes, from the University of Idaho, and Nabil Gasmi, of the University of Sousse, Tunisia, visited the Mos Espa site in 2009, and noted that part of a nearby set used in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope had already been overrun. Using satellite images of the site, they were able to determine the speed of dune movement, which is approaching the buildings once inhabited by such luminaries as Anakin, his slave owner Watto, and rival podracer Sebulba.'"

166 comments

  1. And then in a thousand years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Archaeologists will study these homes, and come up with all sorts of explanations for their features or lack thereof.

    1. Re:And then in a thousand years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they'll have to be alien archaeologists that like a drier and hotter planet than Tattoine since we're doomed to heat death from global warming.

    2. Re:And then in a thousand years by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      More likely they'll come to the conclusion that someone was playing silly buggers, due to the lack of non-structural detritus, middens, or other forms of human leavings.

    3. Re:And then in a thousand years by Teresita · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Sweep the sand out of the garage? But Uncle Owen, I was going to Toshi Station to hang out with Koo Stark!"

    4. Re:And then in a thousand years by tibman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought it was normal for construction workers to take dumps all over the property and unfinished buildings?

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    5. Re: And then in a thousand years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not least because they're incomplete as dwellings. If you ever visit the site, you'll just enough fibreglass supported on wooden frames to complete each shot required for the films.

    6. Re:And then in a thousand years by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or it will lead them to discover Episode I and they will finally understand why the Second Dark Ages occurred.

    7. Re:And then in a thousand years by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Based on the movement of the dune, it looks like it will pass over and within decades the city will be uncovered again.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:And then in a thousand years by Seumas · · Score: 1

      My thought was more along the lines of "great, when they're swallowed up, can we finally stop giving a shit about Star Wars?"

      Unfortunately, I think it'll still be milked and unimaginative dolts will still be jacking off to the franchise in a thousand years, when these are unearthed.

    9. Re:And then in a thousand years by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      I thought it was normal for construction workers to take dumps all over the property and unfinished buildings?

      I understand that when the David Lynch version of "Dune" was filmed in Mexico, they had to sweep cigarette butts, food wrappers, and other such detritus out of the dunes to get that "deep desert" look.

    10. Re:And then in a thousand years by thereitis · · Score: 1

      "The barchan will probably continue on its journey past the city site, which in due course will re-emerge from the sand, but it is anticipated that it will not remain unscathed." Another interesting tidbit: "persons ~ 1.6 m tall atop the dune (~ 35 pixels) act as a scale bar to estimate the dune height (135 pixels) as ~ 6.5 m high". That's a lot of sand.

    11. Re:And then in a thousand years by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, here's what will happen when they actually find what is getting burried there.

      *Dig dig dig dig TINK!*

      Archaeologist: Ah ha! A tomb of some sort! Soon we will learn why these buildings are out here and left to be forgotten in the sands!

      *Wedge wedge wedge CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK THUD!*

      Workers: GASP!

      *BOING*

      Jar Jar: Brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbr! Mesa so glad you let me free! So close in there! Where is'a George? *Hops out*

      Archaeologist and Workers: OH MAH GAWD IT"S CURSED! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! AAAAAAHHHHHH!

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    12. Re:And then in a thousand years by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      The first thing that came to mind when I read this story was the following quote from "2010: The Year We Make Contact" by Arthur C. Clarke:

      So it went on, case after case. Very few of the contactees were actually lying or insane; most of them sincerely believed their own stories, and retained that belief even under hypnosis. And some were just victims of practical jokes or improbable accidents - like the unlucky amateur archaeologists who found the props that a celebrated science-fiction moviemaker had abandoned in the Tunisian desert almost four decades earlier.

    13. Re:And then in a thousand years by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      "....The barchan will probably continue on its journey past the city site, which in due course will re-emerge from the sand, but it is anticipated that it will not remain unscathed...."

      ?

      --
      -Styopa
    14. Re:And then in a thousand years by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Archaeologists will study these... and come up with all sorts of explanations for their features or lack thereof.

      Hopefully they'll find out who really shot first.

    15. Re:And then in a thousand years by doccus · · Score: 1

      er..heat death?. Lemme put the cat in the pigeon's coop. More likely buried under a mountain of ice. We're goin' down folks.. temperaturewise, that is.. the more extreme our seasons are, the longer our winters are gonna be.. till the ice doesn't go away any more.

    16. Re:And then in a thousand years by doccus · · Score: 1

      And... it's these pesky glaciers, grinding ecverything into microscopic bits, that remove every trace of previous occupancy. Grinding Tunisia tto the ground. Nothing left for archaeologists to study.

    17. Re:And then in a thousand years by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Especially if they mistake it for a history documentary.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. those horrible prequels by KernelMuncher · · Score: 5, Funny

    if only the sand could swallow up those horrible prequels as well . . .

    1. Re:those horrible prequels by felixrising · · Score: 1

      here! here! Some things deserve to be buried and forgotten.

    2. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daammmnnn!!! Boom - Headshot!

    3. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only if Jar Jar can be buried as well.

    4. Re:those horrible prequels by pwizard2 · · Score: 0

      Episode 3 almost made up for the other two (the key word being almost). That said, I watched EPIII again a few days ago after not having seen it for awhile. The reason for Anakin/Vader's fall has always seemed really petty to me. I guess after 20+ years of build-up I expected something more compelling than Anakin's fear of losing Padme because of a few nightmares.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    5. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only part of Episode 3 that I enjoyed was seeing Anakin scream in pain as he burned.

    6. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "Hear, hear!"?

    7. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem was Anakin was petty. Instead of taking this innocent boy and tormenting the hell out of him, they just made him a whiny baby who, by the way, was stronger in the force than anyone else (thanks to magical pixie dust, but I digress).

      If I would have written it and been required to keep the basic storyline, I'd at least have him KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOW he was the killer in the dreams.

      But really, by the end of the second movie, we should have already seen a lot of Darth coming out of him. Not just hints that he's not following the ways of the Jedi. He should have been basically unlikeable and out of control at that point. Instead we had him frolicking in some flowers with Padme. Oooh, what a rebel, pardon the pun.

      Again, if I'd have written it, he'd have married Padme much earlier (perhaps sparing us the romance entirely) and it would be a bad relationship for both of them, giving a chance for us to see his darker side.

      I really think the problem with the whole thing is that we meet him as a five year old boy and he progresses into a whiny teenager. I'd have rather met him when he was older (making more sense with the "too old to train" nonsense). Then he can be whiny and progress into a dangerous loner.

    8. Re:those horrible prequels by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bad StarWars is like bad pizza; it's better than no pizza and I still finish it.

    9. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a set from the prequels. See honey badger for comments.

    10. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he was calling his dog. The dog ran away a few weeks ago and he is obviously hoping that the dog still reads slashdot every now and then.

    11. Re:those horrible prequels by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Is there a Kickstarter or something where we might donate money to help accelerate the process? Hell, I'll take a bucket and a spade and throw sand myself if it will help.

    12. Re:those horrible prequels by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Depends what sex the dog is. Everyone knows bitches don't read slashdot.

      (I shall now retire to my underground bunker where I can hide from the incoming for the above statement).

    13. Re:those horrible prequels by Seumas · · Score: 4, Informative

      More like all Star Wars is like a bad long-term relationship. Everyone else knows you should get out and experience more things in life. Better things. Far more amazing and creative and imaginative things. Unfortunately, you've invested so much time in it that it is all you know and you stick around taking the whacks and insults rather than venturing out.

    14. Re:those horrible prequels by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Bad StarWars is like bad pizza; it's better than no pizza and I still finish it.

      It must suck to be starving. Personally, if I met a pizza as bad as the prequels, I'd drive it back to the store and start complaining. I could not finish Episode III. For my money, that was by far the worst of the movies. I had the same feeling for the entire half of that movie that I watched that I had when Legolas went shield-surfing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:those horrible prequels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for letting me know. I'll write that in my diary. I trust you've informed the media?

    16. Re:those horrible prequels by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Yeah master missa ganna goin back in missa box now.

    17. Re:those horrible prequels by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for letting me know. I'll write that in my diary. I trust you've informed the media?

      Don't be jealous that people care what I say. If you logged in you could be ignored for who you truly are.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:those horrible prequels by steelfood · · Score: 1

      At least the dunes are helping erase a part of the prequels. Or are they preserving it for posterity? Perhaps when the dunes shift again in the distant future and the site gets rediscovered, it'll serve to teach film makers of that time how not to fuck up a billion-(trillion- by then)dollar franchise.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    19. Re:those horrible prequels by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Salad for you!

    20. Re:those horrible prequels by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But can you keep it down after you finish it?

    21. Re:those horrible prequels by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Origin of Pizza the Hut?

  3. Sand dunes caused by set? by MatthiasF · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the series of photos and shape of the dune, it seems like the set itself altered the wind pattern and caused the very same dune that is going to engulf it?

    1. Re:Sand dunes caused by set? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dunes are always crescent shaped like that.

  4. Why was the set left? by thorbsd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why was the set left in the desert? Was the film crew asked to leave it, or could they just be bothered to spend money removing their trash when they were finished shooting?

    1. Re:Why was the set left? by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

      Previous sets have been left there as well. What good is the set now in the digital age?

    2. Re:Why was the set left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're from Hollywood, they'll leave their trash all over. Dirt bags.

    3. Re:Why was the set left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why was the set left in the desert? Was the film crew asked to leave it, or could they just be bothered to spend money removing their trash when they were finished shooting?

      Because it is a tourist attraction and brings money to the area.

    4. Re:Why was the set left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? It's not like anybody lives there.

    5. Re:Why was the set left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previous sets have been left there as well. What good is the set now in the digital age?

      None at all. That's why they should pick up their trash and cart it out, rather than leave detritus strewn through the desert

    6. Re:Why was the set left? by Sqweegee · · Score: 1

      You can still visit the original sets from episode IV, someone is even restoring Luke's "home".

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336377/Photographer-stumbles-Star-Wars-sets-middle-Tunisian-desert.html

    7. Re:Why was the set left? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      It's good to know that domestic violence (and a thermal detonator) didn't completely destroy the Lars/Skywalker home.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bocmVZXXY8w

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
  5. Space Balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Barf: Chief... I can't... I can't go any further. I can't go any further.
    Lonestar: Just one more dune to go.
    Barf: That's what you said three dunes ago. I got no more left. Oh, waiter... cheque please.
    [collapses, dropping Dot]
    Lonestar: Must go on... MUST GO ON! Must go on...
    [stops]
    Lonestar: Who am I kidding?
    [Drops Vespa, collapses]

  6. Location, location, location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a reason why the Sand People are nomadic. And they don't call the Jawa transports 'sand crawlers' just to be mean either.

    Who builds in a dune anyway? Man, have I got some property in Dagobah to sell you!

    1. Re:Location, location, location by rossdee · · Score: 2

      "Who builds in a dune anyway? "

      The Fremen

    2. Re:Location, location, location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who builds in a dune anyway? "

      The Fremen

      If I recall correctly, the Fremen were actually trying to eradicate the dunes by hording water for the future terraforming of the planet. I think the more approprate Dune reference-response would be:

      "Sand Worms"

    3. Re:Location, location, location by almitydave · · Score: 1

      They were trying to plant grass on the wind-ward side of the dunes to prevent them from moving like this. They were eventually to become grassy hills.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  7. Duned, not Doomed by guttentag · · Score: 2, Funny

    It seems a new hope was duned from the beginning. I thought everything looked a little grainier from Episode IV onward. Hope they can clear things up in the future.

    1. Re:Duned, not Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mos Espa was from The Phantom Menace, not A New Hope.

    2. Re:Duned, not Doomed by guttentag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dunes don't move that quickly. It took a few years.

    3. Re:Duned, not Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Phantom Menace came out in 1999. What's your point?

    4. Re:Duned, not Doomed by TooTechy · · Score: 1

      Ahh - thanks. I was wondering where it came from. Now if it was Mos Eisley we'd all be worried..

    5. Re:Duned, not Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's no dune!

    6. Re:Duned, not Doomed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was already worried nobody would make that joke.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Duned, not Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Duned, not Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: "It's a (sand) trap!"

  8. Let the city be buried by Scoldog · · Score: 2

    I've was reading a thread last week were some bloke said about how when his dog died, he buried it wearing a paid of swimming googles and a towel wrapped around the dogs neck like a cape. He then went to his shed and got a whole pile of assorted metal pieces and welded them together in a few different collections of strange shapes and parts. Then he buried them around his dog.

    In the future when the dune moves and this city is uncovered, hopefully we could really screw with some archaeologists head!

    --
    This space for rent
  9. Dune by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's no dune.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  10. What??? by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2

    They weren't required to restore the dunes to their native state after the shoot?

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:What??? by siride · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which native state would that be? They're always moving, reshaping and disappearing.

    2. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hollywood has left a lot of its garbage lying around over the years. Something I stumbled on this morning was a YouTube video of a guy visiting the site where they filmed the train/bus crash & derailment scene from the 1993 version of The Fugitive. The locomotives and remains of the bus were just shoved off to the side and have been left sitting there for 20 years.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvizgSKTaVE

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWdMm8J0lc

    3. Re:What??? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they're just waiting that the film turns technically profitable! then they'll clean it up.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TPM had a budget of $115 million and made over $1 billion in the box office alone. If that's not "technically" profitable, I don't know what is.

  11. Its a trap! by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    The sarlacc is just below that sand waiting for prey fool enough to dig in those ruins.

  12. Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. by dgharmon · · Score: 0, Troll

    Lucas and Spielberg both destroyed the US film industry. What remains are translations of comic strips and live action video games. It's all the average attention of that particular audience demograph (fourteen) that these "motion pictures" are aimed at . Apart from the first one, the entire "Star Wars" serial is infantile rubbish interlaced with endless shots cadged from Metropolis and the Sith/Jedi mythology being endlessly and (retrospectively) rehashed. eg. Yes Luke you are your own mother and father, as you went back in time had a sex change and married yourself. As Harrison Ford once put it: "You can type this shit, George, but you sure can't say it."

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. by siride · · Score: 1

      Alright, alright, I'll get off your lawn.

    2. Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is... you're right.

    3. Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. by Horshu · · Score: 1

      "Duck Dynasty: The Movie" will make you feel better.

    4. Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucas and Spielberg didn't do it.

      The people buying the tickets did it. They readily spend their dollars voting for these movies.

      So quit your film school 101 elitist whining and go fuck yourself.

    5. Re:Star Wars is infantile rubbish .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch films from outside of the US film industry. Those are pretty much all I watch now, aside from the occasional fun US film like Fast & Furious or Pacific Rim.

  13. Good by maliqua · · Score: 1

    Can they put the original reels for the prequels to die with the set

  14. Tanis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consumed by the desert, wiped clean by the wrath of god.

  15. The spice flows!!! by rts008 · · Score: 2

    The sandworms are back!

    Oh wait, wrong story.

    Maybe they should have put the Dune set there instead. ;-)

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  16. or watch the movie? more documents than people by raymorris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder about future historians and archeologists.TThere are now more web pages than people. Several 24/7 news channels document everything in excruciating detail. Will people in the future wonder about anything that happened in the 21st century, or will they merely need to decide which stories are interesting enough to tell in history books?

    With the technologies Facebook is developing and knowledge graphs being pioneered for Google Now, will historians of the future even need to compile narratives, or will Google 3000 interpret the database and narrate the story in real time when you query it? "Siri, tell me about my great-great-great-grandfather."

    1. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, the latter is more likely. In the far future, the start of the information age will be considering the effective start of history. Knowledge of events prior to the 21st century will be considered semi-mythical, due to the fact that they weren't recorded at the time and all we have are essentially second hand accounts recorded in files with timestamps from the 21st or late 20th century at the very earliest. They'll (correctly) consider any "historical" texts of time before that as the theories and opinions on history given by later scholars, whereas from the 21st century forward they'll have actual historical records, rather than speculation.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'm somehow certain that you won't get an exemption for such petty things like archaeology from the ban on breaking DRM. So... good luck finding a device that can play that content back.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2

      So the writers of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, for example, were theorising and speculating, were they?

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    4. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's outright bullshit and I can't see how it got modded up with anything besides funny.

      It's going to be the complete opposite. There's going to be a gap in history of things lost due to unreadable formats and hardware failures where the data isn't even there to read, and that's not even counting things like DRM and data in the cloud that just gets deleted when the company fucks up or closes. The loss is can already be experienced daily, and it can pretty much only get worse.

    5. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Paper records were frequently lost too. Losing 3% of the data per year for a century leaves: 6% behind. 6% of what we produce now is far more than was produced a century ago.

    6. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by jbolden · · Score: 1

      We know they were frequently giving us biased versions of events. Details are missing that go against their case. We know this because when we can check the records with other medieval sources that's what we find. For many of the translations we can't tell what stuff is being added by scribes and what is in the original, we know it happens by comparing the Chronicles with themselves. We know for a fact some of the dates are wrong. We know some of the places are wrong. There were a lot of errors in moving from Latin to Middle English.

      Of course it also has all sorts of bias problems about being focused on a small group of people at the time. I think they are clearly 3rd or 4th hand knowledge of events. I don't see how they represent a counter argument.

    7. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's outright bullshit and I can't see how it got modded up with anything besides funny.

      It's going to be the complete opposite. There's going to be a gap in history of things lost due to unreadable formats and hardware failures where the data isn't even there to read, and that's not even counting things like DRM and data in the cloud that just gets deleted when the company fucks up or closes. The loss is can already be experienced daily, and it can pretty much only get worse.

      The information age is not limited to the porn you have stored on your hard drive.

      Let say that we eradicate all electronics completely. Every computer, phone, microwave oven, calculator gone.
      Now everything that is left is all printed documents. That means that future historians will have a pretty large record of how average Joe lived his life and what his economy looked like. With all printed legal papers, printed spam mail, travel information, printed manuals for all that electronic stuff and printed newspapers on top of that there is an insane amount of information that will be available for the future compared to what was written just a century ago. Go back 500 years and all written documents about life in my region can be counted on a mans fingers. A thousand years ago? The only thing written about it a note from the Roman empire that essentially says that people here was generally friendly but would go to war at the drop of a hat.

      These days pretty much everyone have at least one bookshelf worth of papers and storage rooms filled with junk wrapped up in old newspapers. If one in a million of those papers are preserved for a thousand years then pretty much everything worth knowing will be available for the future.
      You might not be able to re-watch Pulp Fiction but you will have enough reviews to be able to piece it together in chronological order and probably enough images to reenact the scenes.

    8. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone were to restore the data of a punch-card today. What do you think is most likely, that they build a device to mechanically read the holes or that they just throw it into an optical scanner/take a photo of it and write software to read the hole positions?
      When future archeologists are going to read a spinning platter drive they won't bother with figuring out the pinout of the connectors and how the controller circuit works. They are going to make a detailed magnetic scan of the platters and from that figure out the data format.
      Figuring out ancient partitioning tables and filesystems are going to be major breakthroughs but it's not really more complex than what teenagers already do with proprietary file formats for games theses days. If a child can do it in a week I assume that an expert will be able to do it in less than a year.

    9. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that unreadable formats will be more than annoyances to future archeologists than outright memory holes. Many formats, especially older formats are actually pretty simple. Those which bother with cryptography, crcs, or checksum security features would fall to Moore's law.

    10. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that now, but was the same thing said of papyrus and scrolls 3,000 years ago?

      Who is to say that in 3,000 years people will look back at our "digital age" and scoff at the notion of storing bits of data on mundane physical drives.

    11. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume far too much. You assume that the current technological trend will continue. You assume that freedom of information will always win. I admire your optimism of which there are those that would call it naivete. It's also just as likely that we will come under a world regime that will rip informative freedom asunder which will start us on our path backwards. At that point, what's to say that all the digital store houses of information won't be destroyed. What's to say that in the next age of enlightenment, the next Renaissance, our inventive minds don't come up with a completely different form of data storage, and wonder what the hell these little magnetic disks and square plastic thingies are all over the place. Digital media is too volatile a medium to be able to expect it to last.

    12. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      I think we are going to see the same thing happen with electronic records that happened with paper records in the past. The things that survive will be the things that people take an active effort to preserve. In the past that meant if the books and records were valuable enough that they took care in storing them and made additional copies. In the future it will be the things that are valuable enough that people keep moving it to ever newer data storage formats. Things like DRM, proprietary formats etc just make it less likely that any given piece of data will survive long term. Things that only have a few copies will be less likely to survive than things that have vast numbers of copies. I would not be surprised if in the far future there won't be an entire branch of archeology dedicated to reverse engineering ancient data formats.

    13. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      If you can find it, James Gleick's essay "The Digital Attac: Are We Becoming Amnesiacs? Or Pack Rats?" (collected in "What Just Happened") engages with this dilemma.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    14. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      We've already bitten the bullet for early TV show loss because nobody pointed a camera at the broadcast video to capture it, or erased early video tapes after they were finally invented because they needed to reuse those expensive things (hey, it was just a stupid little throwaway play performance, gosh! What the hell would people in the time of flying cars want with it?)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Err, Attic. Attic Attac is something else.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    16. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by AJH16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that is totally different from news reporting today...

      --
      AJ Henderson
    17. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by Stolpskott · · Score: 0

      So the writers of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, for example, were theorising and speculating, were they?

      Possibly - what proof do we have that the authors of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles were actual witnesses of what they wrote, or even that what they wrote was truthful?
      Bearing in mind that the language the Chronicles were written in has next to no relation to modern English, you would be reliant on the honesty/ethics/accuracy of a modern-day translator to convert the Chronicles into a form you could actually read.
      A similar (or the same) problem exists with the Bible (one of the oldest known books, and just about the most widely distributed book with probably the most different versions of the book) - something happened, and someone who was there at the time told someone else their version of what happened, that person then told someone else, and so on. If you take the earliest known fragments of the Bible as an example, that gives you a 200-year long game of Chinese Whispers before someone actually writes something down... or 400+ years if you take the Greek Septuagint (oldest record of the complete text).
      Once it is written down, because there is no printing press (developed in the 11th Century by the Han Chinese, or the first Guttenberg presses of the 15th Century), each new copy has to be scribed from an existing copy. While the vast majority of scribes probably could not read, and were therefore copying verbatim, any copy produced by a literate scribe is subject to editing (see the changes to the Bible over the course of history, as each group pushes their own "interpretation" of the "original" which matches their own beliefs and agenda).

      Just because a document is damned old does not mean it is accurate. The older it is, the less likely it is that the general populace will be able to read it, meaning that you have a much smaller chance of getting someone's interpretation of what the document says, rather than the original meaning.

    18. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Most of what we have today will be lost, or intentionally deleted by people in the future who won't give a damn about your cute dog photos or sexts or comments on slashdot and most of our literature. Frankly, that's what most of it deserves.

      But they will probably keep permanent records of whatever it is from our era they find to be interesting,

    19. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Also, translation from and to different languages dozens of times over increases the margin of error from any one scribe; since, as you mentioned, before the Printing Press making copies of books was a very error prone manual process.

      I personally chuckle whenever the militant atheists around here willfully ignore these facts about the Bible and other religious texts when they put them down as not being factual.

    20. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I've always found this toe be interesting: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst140/MotelOfMysteries.html

    21. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes that is different. Journalists today are very careful of noting what the source said vs. what they think. The use of quotation marks and the standards for them are a huge, huge improvement in history / journalism. Our understanding of translation is better and when documents are translated originals are carefully retained. I can't tell you what of our news reports survives 1000 years from now, so it isn't a fair comparison but today's journalism vs. what survived from then. No question ours is better.

    22. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      While the vast majority of scribes probably could not read, and were therefore copying verbatim

      What is your source for this assertion? The monasteries that copied books also trained those scribes in literacy. By the time anyone would have been allowed to copy, they would have learned the values of the letters, and beginning readers not much different from the schoolboy primers of later centuries are abundant among medieval manuscripts.

      Now, junior monks in the West may have had a shaky knowledge of Latin and not understood entirely what they were transcribing, but for senior scribes a firm command of Latin was common. And for monks in the Byzantine world, the Koine Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament was not so different from their own native language as to seriously impede understanding (it was Attic Greek that required rigorous schooling).

    23. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by Stolpskott · · Score: 1

      What is your source for this assertion?

      Anthropoligical theses such as "Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE" by Martin Joffee... who I am sure will not mind too much if I pull out a quote from one of his chapters:
      "true literacy was rare among Jews in this period, and was confined to various professional scribal groups associated with the Temple and its governing agencies. Even among scribal groups who created literary works, writing and literary transmission was highly oral in character"
      Granted, this period was 800-1000 years before the Christian Monasteries you are referring to, where scribes were probably broadly literate, but where also there would probably have been considerable internal political pressure to make the message conform to desired social constraints - conspiracy theories such as the de-emphasis in the Bible of the influence of Mary aside, rewriting of the Bible as a book is a common thing - my old family bible from the 1700's (handed down through the generations because of a tradition of using it to record the family geneaology) is incredibly blood-thirsty and violent in comparison to modern versions... that difference was what initially piqued my interest in the act and processes of recording of history.

    24. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paper records were frequently lost too.

      Uh huh. The only copies of works we have of many of the Greek Masters (e.g., Father of Western Comedy, Menander*) were found in trash pits or recycled bits (linings of mummy wrappings).

      * The Cairo Codex of Menander was only discovered last century and is written, of course, in ancient Greek. It was written sometime before 292 BCE, making it easily over 2,000 years old. Which file formats do you think will still be in use in Two Thousand Years? "UTF-8 Text" might be your best shot, but you know deep down that it is highly unlikely, once computers move off bytes for memory/permanent storage.

      Grandparent is 100% correct. There will be a huge gap, even larger than the one for movies made in the last 70-100 years (most of which are lost). Ever wonder why the History Channel ends at WWII? Because all the footage from Korea and Vietnam is lost due to copyright. It will NEVER be preserved for the future, unless Congress gets their heads out of their sphincters and returns copyright to something sane, like, say, 13 years.

    25. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by steelfood · · Score: 2

      Yes, the Library at Alexandria burned to the ground. But there are dozens upon dozens of tomes buried under the ground that have survived for thousands of years.

      I guarantee that none of the information stored only in a digital medium will survive in a thousand years, much less two or three thousand.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    26. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by interkin3tic · · Score: 1
      Time out. Rampant cynicism alert.

      There's going to be a gap in history of things lost due to unreadable formats and hardware failures where the data isn't even there to read, and that's not even counting things like DRM and data in the cloud that just gets deleted when the company fucks up or closes.

      You're summing up, what, thousands of media formats, from CDROM to tweets to servers, and saying it's all, across the board going to evaporate? Ridiculous. Some will be lost yes, but we don't need to carve every facebook status in granite for historians to have ample data. DRM? I suppose that will be a barrier for historical purposes, but I'd suggest "paper rotting or burning in a fire or being stolen" is a much bigger hurdle that historians and archeologists have overcome than "figuring out .doc files." There will be abundant amounts of data left over.]

      The loss is can already be experienced daily...

      The same is true for all history and has always been true.

      ... and it can pretty much only get worse.

      That's outright bullshit and I can't see how it got modded up with anything besides funny. You're saying we're forever stuck writing things in digital sand before the tide comes in? That's idiotic.

    27. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting that - I loved this book as a kid and think of it every time I hear about archaeological excavations. David Macauley knows of what he speaks.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    28. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking idiot who watches too much TV.

    29. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by raque · · Score: 1

      One of the points of Archaeology is to check the historic record. I will point out the Tuscon Garbage Project as an example. It plainly shows that what even honest people say and what they do ain't the same thing.

      Also, more importantly, what people think happened, and that is what they record, and what really happened doesn't need to coincide.

      For example at Mos Espa the history 10,000 years from now will show that this was a famous ritual space where the hero/demon Vader was born. But an Archaeological analysis will not find a community. They will find buildings that only make sense from a certain angle, are unique, just look like they work, but don't. There will be small temporary habitation that is concurrent with the time period. This will question the historical validity of the Hero/Demon Vader, but will be suppressed. The truth that Saint Luke, the companion of Christos, redeemed his father with the Force of Holy Ghost as given by Christos is undeniable. Those future Archaeologists will have to weigh the importance of their findings that Mos Espa was a theatrical film set, versus the fury of the inquisition.

    30. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the rate at which storage technology is advancing, it's doubtful that anything historical would be purposely erased. In a hundred years, there will probably be dirt cheap media the size of a micro SD card that can contain the entirety of today's internet with lots of room to spare.

    31. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than people by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So the writers of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, for example, were theorising and speculating, were they?

      Compare and contrast having your comment, this entire discussion, and the original article on file versus having something like "In the twelfth year after the Gleaming Towers fell, Simon of Slashdot spoke out in doubt against the Chronicle of Saxon."

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Paper can be burned, water-damaged, or simple neglected, and it may fall apart. Digital media can get hit with an EMP, water, fire, magnetic fields, or just frickin' air (depending on the format), and information can be lost.

      Also, bit rot.

    33. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We'll also have fully documented, with evidence, 20 competing accounts of every historical event.

    34. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by jbolden · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent comment you should get an account. As for what file formats will be used in two thousand years. Let's assume none. But that's not the question. The question is what file formats will be understandable in two thousand years. And that may be far more.

      We could have a massive attempt at archiving the 21st century data in say the 24th century for posterity. .pdf for example is very well documented. It isn't unlikely that a future civilization could understand it. I think there will be enough documentation to survive just 300 years. So that for example. Similarly for many e-book formats. Similarly for .gif, ,jpeg, ,mp3....

    35. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. We have no idea what archival for the 21st century in the year 2400 looks like.

    36. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several 24/7 news channels document everything in excruciating detail.

      Hardly. It seems that the only thing that's happened in the world in the last two weeks is George Zimmerman being acquitted, Obama saying something about it, and The Dutchess of Cambridge, the Former Katherine Middleton, having a baby.

    37. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Pre-information-age history compresses to a point when viewed from far enough away. Alexander the Great, Washington, and Nimitz were contemporaries.

    38. Re:or watch the movie? more documents than people by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      What are these history "books" you speak of?

  17. Sarlacc wins by srichard25 · · Score: 1

    The Sarlacc always wins in the end.

  18. Lost something in the desert? No problem... by madmarcel · · Score: 2

    They need one of these...

    http://imgur.com/gallery/7s0ALeF

    1. Re:Lost something in the desert? No problem... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      They ain't gonna find shit.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  19. A good start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now just need to add the proofs.

  20. The sarlacc is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now PETA's goals will be challenged. Do we kill such a harmless and wonderful creature?

    1. Re:The sarlacc is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PETA probably just wants to kill it themselves.

  21. Mos Espa? Who cares? by ildon · · Score: 2

    Everyone knows Mos Eisley is where it's at.

    1. Re:Mos Espa? Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows Mos Eisley is where it's at.

      Mos Eisley?! I've never encountered a more wretched hive of scum and villainy...

  22. Dunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spice must flow...

  23. So like does this mean... by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

    ...that Dune is better than Star Wars?

    I can totally see that as long as we're talking about books, not films. There are some many parallels. Both started great. Eventually sequels turned both to crap. Course Dune has no good sequel. Both are messiah stories. Both have deserts. Both have magical powers inside people. Holy shit. Dune IS Star Wars!

    1. Re:So like does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you've never read the Dune books. God Emperor of Dune, Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse: Dune were much better than the first book.

      If you meant the books by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson, then yes, those were horrible.

    2. Re:So like does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...that Dune is better than Star Wars?

      While it is true that Dune is better than Star Wars, this dune swallowing a set doesn't mean anything.

      I can totally see that as long as we're talking about books, not films.

      If we talk about films, you do realize we have to talk about the prequels, right? I don't like Lynch's version of Dune at all, but it's definitely better than The Phantom Menace. And we should really include the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries Frank Herbert's Dune and Children of Dune. FHD is a little rough around the edges, but it's good. CoD is fantastic. Both at LEAST as good as Jedi, maybe as good as New Hope. Empire probably wins it.

      There are some many parallels. Both started great. Eventually sequels turned both to crap. Course Dune has no good sequel.

      Dune has five excellent sequels. Like Empire is better than Star Wars, Messiah is better than Dune. The only sequels that are crap are written by KJA and Brian Herbert, may their knives chip and shatter.

      Both are messiah stories. Both have deserts. Both have magical powers inside people. Holy shit. Dune IS Star Wars!

      Uh, if anything, Star Wars is Dune.

    3. Re:So like does this mean... by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      The original is one of the worst movies ever to be made...it was even terrible when it was made. Voice based powers? Illdefine "spice"? Inner monologue voiceovers? Ugh awful

    4. Re:So like does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the Dune movie was David Lynch's giant fart. Embarrassingly awful. Unwatchable.

    5. Re:So like does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The one thing that I will give to the film is that they got the sets and costumes spot on. They were almost exactly as I imagined them to be when reading the books. The stillsuits were a bit off, but not nearly as bad as the ones from the SciFi miniseries.

  24. That's a bit of a stretch by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

    poised to bury a famous Star Wars film set

    It's a set from EP1 .. I think the author meant to say 'infamous Star Wars film set'. It may not be dead and buried, but 1 out 2 aint bad.

    1. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Why all the hate for episode one? It literally sets up the entire trilogy! The senate alone makes it worth watching. I guess since something doesn't get shot or explode constantly?
      I went back and watched the originals and had (until now) never notice how little substance there is...episode one also didn't have Hayden Christiansen

    2. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      A sheet of letter-sized paper simply stating the events of Episode 1 would've set up the trilogy too, that doesn't mean it would be entertaining. It probably would've involved less monologues about trade embargoes though.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you actually got into the simplistic and child-like representation of politics in the prequels?

      Episode I was pure garbage and did nothing for the overall story. Episodes II and III were little better. Everything from the poor character development to the trite plots to the entirely slapstick vibe to the constant spinny ninja lightsaber brandishing to the sterile, obvious CGI environments left me disgusted with all of the prequels.

    4. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      1. Okay that's fantastic, but you could say that about almost any series.
      2. I fail to understand what was wrong with that?

      The politics and the monologues made a lot of sense. The characters (except qui-gon and amadala) were all relatable, and they all had a proper arc. Their motifvations were organic for the most part. You didn't have the pile of contrived horse shit that is the arena scene from Episode 2. Or Hayden Christiansen boo-hooing every 3 seconds. Or a (again) contrived and terrible love story.
      I also hate, utterly hate, and abhor stylized action. The transporter and its ilk shouldn't exist in my opinion. I say so because the entire content of 2 and 3 is one super-stylized super-long action scene after another. The action in the originals wasn't exactly gritty, but it was a damn sight closer!
      Anakin's decent almost felt shoehorned in instead of a gradual decline. The scene with Palpatine was just...ugh. I can't talk about this anymore.

      Most of it probably stems from my frankly being tired of action scenes. Episode one to me had a good balance between dialogue and action. The podracer scene was great, and the lightsaber duel at the end was one of the best. That duel is stylized, but they hadn't gone overboard yet. The scene with the gungans was a halfway decent battle, but it felt lot more like the other movies in a bad way.

    5. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucking hate it when people use the word "literally" incorrectly.

    6. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      My point is that making sense is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a bit of fiction to be acceptable. It's about as effective a defense of Episode 1 as "actually contained moving pictures and synchronised sound". This is by no means a defense of the later movies, mind you.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  25. ecological tragedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The movement of dunes was kept in check by whomp rats, docile creatures who only eat sand, and things stayed in balance til the whomp rats were wiped out by human predators introduced by none other than Lucasfilm, who used to bullseye on them.

  26. Piffle by ReadAholic · · Score: 1

    Meh... So what... Maybe people need to re-learn how to let go.
    Let it go.

  27. Disney by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Disney's freaking out: "Quick, buy the Dune franchise!"

  28. God wants to forget the prequels too! by ukemike · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mos Espa? That must be from episode 1. God wants to forget the prequels too!

    --
    -- QED
  29. If we pool some money over the net... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I'm sure we could hire a small army of Tunisians with trucks and get the abomination buried faster!

  30. blame it by mikerubin · · Score: 1

    on the Sith

    --
    I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
    1. Re:blame it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame it on the Tshi.

  31. mass aggregation and history by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I suspect you are right. Mass data aggregation wasn't done. We know a great deal about what important people thought, but we don't have much information about how common their views are. So we what we have are just editorials and we make guesses as to how much to weigh those editorials and what facts ban be derived from them. Our historians are very skilled at that since this technique still exists in parallel with mass aggregation of data. But 500 years from now when people have good statistical data about everything they might not be good at sorting through non-representative editorials and trying to reverse engineer what was going on.

  32. Dune giveth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Dune taketh away.

  33. Conways Game of life by stewsters · · Score: 1

    These remind me of Gliders. I wonder if we can make a self replicating spaceship with these dunes if we had a few bulldozers.

  34. Frank Herbert's revenge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dune will conquor all. Watch out for the sand worms.

  35. Re: or watch the movie? more documents than peopl by AJH16 · · Score: 1

    In fairness, I do agree with you that it is very different and since different news sources exist, it should be easier to see what the views of the day were, but other things still apply. For example while quotes may be accurate, they can quote or not quote who they like. With or current level of perspective we can fairly easily pick this out, but the entire point of news media has become to present views in a certain light and without the perspective of the times it may be very hard to sort out these biases and pull the gems from the noise.

    In the past we had a few pieces of information regardless of quality. In the future they will have overwhelming amounts of information of mixed quality and bias to the point that practically sorting out the truth may be difficult.

    It will be interesting to see what happens though, even if none of us are here to see it.

    --
    AJ Henderson
  36. See this slashdot article .. by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    Thanks for all the constructive responses. It's worse than I thought, see this slashdot article ..

    "The Book That Is Making All Movies the Same"

    --
    AccountKiller
  37. Can't be buried fast enough I say. If only a sand dune would have buried Jar Jar Binks or the career of Jake Lloyd before he could be cast. If only...

    1. Re:Meh by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Um, Jake Lloyd has just been cast as Ender for the Ender's Game movie...

      I always liked the kid. People gave him way too much crap. Even Harrison Ford has a horrible time acting out George's pathetic writing. What was a little kid supposed to do with that crap?

      He definitely played the part of Anakin way better than Hayden Christensen - that guy made a mockery of the whole thing. Whether the writing or the acting, I'm still not sure.

    2. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, Jake Lloyd has just been cast as Ender for the Ender's Game movie

      No he wasn't.

      Not that I intend to watch anything by that homophobic piece of shit Orson Scott Card.

    3. Re:Meh by TheAmazingChestaro · · Score: 0

      If they were going for whiney spoiled teenager with Hayden's character, then they nailed it spot on.

  38. also lack of scientific knowledge = weird descript by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Also in a case like the old testament, not only is it scrambled as it's retold, but the original refers to "fire from the heavens" and the like. Is that a severe lightning storm? Meteors? Volcanic eruption? We don't know because they didn't know.

    More and more evidence suggests that the old testament is kind of like Saint Nick - based on a true story, and evolved over time.

  39. Anakin, Watto, Sebulba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of these characters were in Episode 4! Duh!

  40. Frank Herbert's Revenge by Dabido · · Score: 1

    That's what happens when you borrow the idea of a planet being entirely desert from a SF legend. :-)

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)