Slashdot Mirror


Britain's Eastern Coast Yields Oldest Human Footprints Outside Africa

schwit1 writes "They were a British family on a day out — almost a million years ago. Archaeologists announced Friday that they have discovered human footprints in England that are between 800,000 and 1 million years old — the most ancient found outside Africa, and the earliest evidence of human life in northern Europe. A team from the British Museum, London's Natural History Museum and Queen Mary college at the University of London uncovered imprints from up to five individuals in ancient estuary mud at Happisburgh on the country's eastern coast."

120 comments

  1. And did these feet in ancient time by E-Sabbath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Walk upon England's mountains green?
    And was the holy Lamb of God
    On England's pleasant pastures seen?

    And did the Countenance Divine
    Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
    And was Jerusalem builded here
    Among these dark satanic mills?

    Bring me my bow of burning gold!
    Bring me my arrows of desire!
    Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
    Bring me my chariot of fire!

    I will not cease from mental fight,
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
    Till we have built Jerusalem
    In England's green and pleasant land.

    1. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by cold+fjord · · Score: 2
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Fine, apart from the fact that

      a. 'England' didn't exist for another million years and a bit.
      b. The skin colour of those who left the footprints wouldn't endear them to the sort of fucking English yahoos who sing that particular ditty..

      oh, FWLIW

      Pedicabo Beta!

    3. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Betteridge's law of hymns is in effect.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, the sort of yahoos singing that ditty, would instantly picture the footprint as left by a proto-yahoo, and add a verse.
      Who are we kidding?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    5. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, the sort of yahoos singing that ditty, would instantly picture the footprint as left by a proto-yahoo, and add a verse...

      So damnably correct,
      I'll admit I wasn't thinking clearly, I'd forgotten their penchant for extending their existence in the British isles backwards in history..In fact I may have heard that verse howled in Oxford last week, it went something like..

      Ug Ug ooh Ug,
      Ug oooh Ug Ug oooh,
      Ug Uggy Ug Ug ooh Ug Ug,

      (repeat ad nauseum, avec lots of beer quaffing).

    6. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      I'll admit I wasn't thinking clearly, I'd forgotten their penchant for extending their existence in the British isles backwards in history..In fact I may have heard that verse howled in Oxford last week, it went something like..

      Ug Ug ooh Ug,
      Ug oooh Ug Ug oooh,
      Ug Uggy Ug Ug ooh Ug Ug,

      Sorry, but you must not have been listening close enough. It was this, not Jerusalem.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Ask Alan Partridge. It's Norfolk.

      Early primitive man could have left these footprints, up to our present day.

       

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, did somebody say "mattress" to Mr Lambert?!

    9. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      s/builded/betad/

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely wrong. This is clear as day ..
      Those are the footprints of the earliest Nikes ever produced. The guy next to him was wearing Keens
      And behind the short bald guy was Bigfoot in flip flops

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    11. Re:And did these feet in ancient time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll admit I wasn't thinking clearly, I'd forgotten their penchant for extending their existence in the British isles backwards in history..In fact I may have heard that verse howled in Oxford last week, it went something like..

      Ug Ug ooh Ug,
      Ug oooh Ug Ug oooh,
      Ug Uggy Ug Ug ooh Ug Ug,

      Sorry, but you must not have been listening close enough. It was this, not Jerusalem.

      Fires up YT...plugs in headphones...aarrrrghh! my ears! they bleed!

      Fark ewe..
      (though I'll be downloading it for surreptitious installation on SOs crappy mp3 player thingy, with all ID tags suitably altered to camouflage this killer..)

      Besides, anyhoo, will (possibly) be back in a week to see how things pan out, meanwhile I'll be lurking somewhere in the Newsgroup dissident camps..
         

  2. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    old news... It was everywhere Thursday. Salshdot is really pathetic now, even the non beta page...

    1. Re:old news by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 4, Informative

      old news... It was everywhere Thursday. Salshdot is really pathetic now, even the non beta page...

      It doesn't matter if it is old news, it doesn't matter if it is a dupe, it doesn't matter if the linked article is lame, it doesn't matter that some posters are trolls or shills.

      What does matter is: is there an intelligent/insightful discussion by the community? I learned a lot over the past 16 years by reading comments here.

      Unfortunately, that does not seem to matter to Dice, who wants /. to be a "B2B social network". If the Beta (which has the comments section as an afterthought, in stead of as the starting point of the redesign) goes live and Classic gets disabled, it will only be "Slashdot" in name.

      --
      /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
    2. Re:old news by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Very much this. Thank you.

      I don't really need my "news" right this instant. Except for the very rare disaster, it's just fine if I get it a week from now. Slashdot had always been the place I came to get reasonable discussions of the news. The comments were frequently more informative than the articles. Especially in science stories, where the article reeks of Science by Press Release and the other web sites were full of ZOMG COLD FUSION, the Slashdot commenters would tell me what the *actual* science behind the article was, by actual experts in the field.

      Sadly, it's become less of that, even without the change to Beta. The community has changed in ways that made me feel much more ambivalent about it, even though I knew that it still had people who could tell me stuff I couldn't find elsewhere. And because of that I'm kind of ambivalent about Beta.

  3. Jerusalem by rossdee · · Score: 1

    And did those feet
    in ancient time
    Walk upon Englands mountains green

    And please keep the Slashdot classic

  4. What does this mean for the "out of Africa" model? by Alsn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As far as I know, the model states that humans migrated from Africa a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Footsteps in Britain from "humans" 1 million years ago would seem to contradict this? Or does this simple mean that these footprints are a Neanderthal precursor species or something similar that's not actually "proper" humans?

    Anyone with some more knowledge of this care to shine a light on this?

  5. But we weren't there so SEE... by Capt.Gingi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sorry, but how can anyone really believe that these pre-date the creation of the planet? Was anyone THERE at THAT TIME to OBSERVE exactly when and by whom the footprints were made? Seems pretty silly to me to believe in this non-obervational "science"! I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

    1. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1
    2. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by tylernt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, but how can anyone really believe that these pre-date the creation of the planet? Was anyone THERE at THAT TIME to OBSERVE exactly when and by whom the footprints were made? Seems pretty silly to me to believe in this non-obervational "science"!

      You appear to be proceeding on the assumption that direct observation is the only reliable method of determining truth. By this standard, I must infer that you do not believe in God, since you have certainly never directly observed Him. Yes?

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    3. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

      Questions like:

      1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
      2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
      3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
      4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
      5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
      6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
      7. Can I get a haircut? No!

      Yup, good book that.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, your willingness to engage in pointless discussion seems to be interfering with your sarcasm detector.

    5. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the scientists actually found that the group likely consisted of one adult male and several children and most of the footprints were pointing in the same direction...

      So clearly this man must have been engaging in all sorts of unthinkable sinful behavior with his young victims right before they all heard the flood approaching and began to run away from it in a vain attempt to escape God's wrath.

    6. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by claytongulick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ok, I try to avoid getting involved in religious conversations like this, but you are coming across as a typical ignorant elitist here, sneering down at things you clearly don't understand. We all get that you aren't religious, but that doesn't give you the right to present skewed information taken out of context. So, I'm going to completely waste my time here and present some *actual* information on each one of your points in the vain hope that in the future you will temper your snark.

      Questions like:

      1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!

      What you aren't saying, is that at the time selling children into slavery was a common practice throughout much of the "civilized" world. This 'law' was put in to place to *protect women*. The reason why is that normally when a child was sold into servitude, they would be freed after a period of time. Since (by far) the reason that women were taken as 'servants' or ('hand-maidens' depending on the interpretation) was as second wives or concubines, it was grossly unfair to the woman to then release her from service after she had been used as a sex object for years. No one would want to marry her, and she was essentially screwed. To protect against that, this law was put into place saying essentially, that if you're going to take this woman on, you have to care for her forever, you can't just have sex with her for a few years while she's pretty and then kick her out once she gets older.

      2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!

      Again, you're totally cherry picking here. Leviticus rules of cleanliness were generally *good* things. At the time, they simply didn't understand biology, and sanitary practices were spotty at best. This was the origin of laying down some rules for sanitary practices, which is a good thing, even if they seem strange to us now. And by the way, Leviticus' admonishments were by no means limited only to women:

      Leviticus 1-5:
      "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge; whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening."

      This was relating to abnormal discharge, no one really understood STD's, they were just doing their best at the time. But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female in order to push some sort of agenda.

      3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!

      Again, you're totally misrepresenting the law here. A the time, this was incredibly progressive. Slavery was rampant and commonly accepted, to limit the bounds of slavery and who could be enslaved was a great step in the right direction. Considering that even the U.S. still hadn't worked out slavery issues as of only 140 years ago, applying 21st century morals to a progressive law created to put bounds and limits on slavery thousands of years ago... well, that's just childish.

      4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!

      I don't even understand your point here. Are you saying this is still a problem? I mean, I agree - we need to stop the rampant slaughter of all the people who work on Sundays in America. Oh wait... you mean, this doesn't happen? At all? So, clearly it was a law intended for another time - a time that penalties were pretty damn harsh for just about any infraction. There's some question about how tightly this was int

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    7. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Again, you're totally cherry picking here."

      thats the typical way the religious interpret the bible so whats wrong with that, the religious only cherry pick the good secular bits and hide the bad religious stuff so don't point that accusation at people criticizing the bible

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because as we all know, two wrongs make a right!

    9. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Religious or not, the Bible in an incredible historical document that should be treated with respect and educated thoughtfulness, not snarky cherry picking and misrepresentation.

      Just like Mein Kampf!

    10. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by styrotech · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that readers of this writing should take account of the time and the cultural context of the writer(s) and not take it literally.

      As a somewhat naive (of these kinds of arguments) observer, it seems to me that you are actually agreeing with those you are apparently disagreeing with.

    11. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you aren't saying, is that at the time...
      At the time, they simply didn't understand... ...they were just doing their best at the time...
      So, clearly it was a law intended for another time...
      A the time, this was incredibly progressive...

      Thanks for re-making my actual point for me, which is not that the bible was written by idiots, but that it's still used, by many idiots, as a justification for their own prejudices and wilful ignorance of fact - which appeared to be the OP's position (with the caveat that the best satire is indistinguishable from that which it satirises).

      But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female

      I wasn't trying to represent it as anti-female. I'm trying to represent it as being millennia out of date.

      Religious or not, the Bible in an incredible historical document

      Agreed, both as you meant it and other meanings of the word "incredible." Though perhaps only "historical" in the sense of "written thousands of years ago," not "everything within actually happened

      that should be treated with respect and educated thoughtfulness

      Perhaps in some contexts. But not as a guide for living your life in the 21st century, which, again, is the position the OP took which I took issue with.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was relating to abnormal discharge, no one really understood STD's, they were just doing their best at the time. But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female in order to push some sort of agenda.

      Says a guy who is either straight up lying apparently never has actually met Orthodox Jews. You know the people who actually wrote the Bible?

      Why do you think El Al flights won't seat males next to females? Because the men might accidentally touch a menstruating woman and become ritually polluted.

      Leviticus is completely clear in both English AND the original Hebrew on this. It has nothing to do with STDs or "abnormal" discharge.

    13. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by claytongulick · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends on what assumptions you are making about me.

      I never said I agreed with the things that I mentioned, or suggested that Leviticus contains a list of rules to live by, or what religion, if any, I ascribe to.

      What I disagree with is the casual disrespect and misrepresentation that the OP treated the Bible with.

      Regardless of religious preference, such an important historical document should be treated with more respect. Also, regardless of religious preference, it is a fool who goes through life believing that there isn't a great deal of wisdom contained in the Bible. Or the Koran (Quran). Or the Bhagavad Gita. I would defend any of those texts with the same fervor.

      I know that it is cool to make fun of religions, especially Christians, here. It's a guaranteed way to score yourself some easy Karma (ironic!). In this case, however, I took exception to the condescending, disrespectful tone and willful ignorance of the poster.

      Those points were specifically cherry picked in order to make a distorted point and to trash the Bible: "Yup, good book that"

      It was done by applying current moral standards, two thousand years later, to a people, civilization and culture that were *vastly* different.

      The poster made no attempt at intellectual honesty, and strictly went for "cool points". This sort of thing lowers the quality of the discussion for everyone. Even if slashdot tends to be something of a hip, liberal echo-chamber - most of us here value reasoned, intelligent debate. The poster didn't do that, so I (quite appropriately) called him out on it.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    14. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by claytongulick · · Score: 1

      No, I disagree. It was clear that the purpose of your comment was to score points by sneering at the Bible. It was clear that the OP's post was a joke, and poking fun at creationists. The OP was taking a sarcastic tone to illustrate some of the poorly reasoned arguments that are made by new-earth creationists.

      You post, however was not that. You post cherry picked individual lines from the Bible in order to specifically misrepresent them, take them out of context in a sort of elitist, intellectually superior tone by applying current moral standards to a culture of thousands of years ago. By doing that, you treated an important book with total disregard and disrespect.

      That was inappropriate.

      You post was inaccurate, misleading and childish. It lowered the quality of the discussion.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    15. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be fine if that was that and any of the rules which don't make much sense these days were left in the past but there is a large following of Christians in the USA (probably elsewhere as well but the ones in the USA seem to be the most vocal about it) that believe that the rules set down in the bible are the only way to live and laws should be adjusted to suit.

    16. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      No, I disagree. It was clear that the purpose of your comment...

      Oh, right, sorry, I must have been mistaken about what was going on in my own head at the time.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    17. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh....

    18. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Why is the bible and important book exactly? Just because it's old? It's certainly not an accurate portrayal of events that occured or any such thing. Is there a reason it deserves more respect than say, The Hobbit? or the Harry Potter books?

      Just intrigued to know what you think is special about it. If it's merely age then I can think of a thousand more old books and documents that are far more interesting, far more fascinating, and from which we can learn much from.

    19. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by werepants · · Score: 1

      Why is the bible and important book exactly? Just because it's old?

      Importance is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but the bible is:
      1. The best selling book of all time
      2. Arguably the most influential book in (and on) human history (for good or ill)
      a. I mean, seriously. People have died for this book. People who died because they were so committed to what it said, and people who have killed because of it. Numerous social movements have happened because of this book. Essentially ALL of Western thought for the past several centuries has been significantly impacted by these writings.
      3. One of the most complete and well-preserved specimens of ancient thought which exists today

      There might be some other books that are contenders for importance to humanity, but The Hobbit and Harry Potter certainly aren't among them. Please note - I'm not saying that anybody should love this book, or that it is "good" - those things are purely subjective. By almost any objective measure, though, the bible is undeniably Important.

    20. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry Mother Earth, for they/we do not see, MANkind is blind.
      Ive read science and history books that laughs at yours.
      Fact is fact, especially scientific fact.... A bible is NOT fact, it is simply a book for humans, a manual for humans that old men wrote and have rewrote, numerous times. Several educated (corrupt, carnie barking, over lords, perverted megalomaniacs) men and popes rewrote their own versions only over the past 2000 years to suit their needs. Does Dark ages and Crusades ring a bell ?
      If you really think beyond your small theological deterministic mind, like everything on order to function and work properly in this world needs a guide book; the bible is about lessons people are to learn and live by.
      Obviously you cant see in front of your face whats fact, Some would say closed minded.
      The Catholics last resigning Pope Benedict XVI stated something to effect: a few monks rewrote/edited the bible and some things were wrong and therefore the bible is wrong. Are you saying as well your religion is the only right reading on earth, and all others are wrong ?
      Next you are suggesting the foot prints are a hoax like dinosaurs and evolution is not real. Where do you think oil and fossils came from ?

    21. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by claytongulick · · Score: 1

      No, just being revisionist and - once again - misleading.

      1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes! [biblehub.com]
      2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes! [biblegateway.com]
      3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes! [biblehub.com]
      4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes! [biblehub.com]
      5. Can I eat shellfish? No! [biblehub.com]
      6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No! [biblehub.com]
      7. Can I get a haircut? No! [biblehub.com]

      Yup, good book that.

      Your phrasing, use of exclamation points, and flippant "Yup, good book that" were all clear indicators of your tone.

      But not as a guide for living your life in the 21st century, which, again, is the position the OP took which I took issue with.

      Saying something does not make it so. The OP did not take the position you stated. Your post was clearly intended to be derogatory and sarcastic.

      Congratulations, the moderators of slashdot agreed with you. You sunk to the level of hipster group think and won karma points. Well done.

      You don't need to justify yourself, you "won". I should have never wasted my time trying to help you improve your critical thinking and writing.

      Please ignore my points, and carry on as you were.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    22. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think all those measures are rather arbitrary. One book is no more important than any other.

      Newton's Principia may have sold far less copies than the bible, it may not be as old, but it's sure as hell been the basis for the largest improvements to technology and quality of life for humanity in the years since. The technological advances stemming from the knowledge within have saved and improved far more lives.

      Similarly there are writings that are much older than the Bible without which the Bible would likely not even exist.

      You may place a lot of emphasis and value on the Bible but that's entirely your subjective view, you're claiming objectivity where there is only subjectivity. It was far more relevant hundreds of years ago, but in modern times it's for example, sold less copies than Harry Potter in a similar time period, and arguably more importantly, has been read by less people because even most owners have never read the bible but few have copies of Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and so forth without ever having read them.

      I used Harry Potter as a popular example of book, not because I genuinely really give a shit about it, but consider this - people have died for Harry Potter too given that the Taliban have executed people for owning a copy due to perceiving it as "un-Islamic" so not only does it fulfil your criteria of more copies in it's lifetime, if you switch to a more objective ratio of units sold per year of existence, it's also had people die for it and it's arguably even been more influential since it's writing.

      To cut a long story short, you can dream up arbitrary measures of importance for just about any book on earth. Those measures don't result in an objective declaration of worth though, only a subjective declaration precisely because the measures are arbitrary.

    23. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by claytongulick · · Score: 1

      That's true, however, there are two really important points here.

      1) No one that I know of, no matter how far afield, follows the rules laid down in Leviticus, which was why I was so annoyed with the poster.

      2) The fact that old testament rules aren't followed strictly is internally consistent. My understanding is that these old rules were superseded by the teachings of Jesus who was mostly all about not harming others.

      Of course, the poster that I originally replied to is either unaware of this, or was specifically misrepresenting these things, which I felt it was necessary to call out.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    24. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by werepants · · Score: 1

      I think all those measures are rather arbitrary. One book is no more important than any other.

      The criteria you use to call my standards arbitrary is just as arbitrary - so there.

      But seriously, claiming that no book is more important than another makes it so this isn't really a discussion worth having. You are not really talking about the bible at all then... just about a general relativistic perspective by which all value statements are subjective, and therefore you don't assign worth to them. Sure, everything is subjective when you get down to it, but we can still get some useful things done with our ultimately subjective and arbitrary perspectives. And, acting as though there are some objective quantities/qualities out there that can be known (or at least approximated well enough) facilitates much more interesting conversation and has proven to be fairly useful (in my subjective opinion).

      There are methods properly called objective (as in, as objective as any physical quantity used in science) to measure a book's influence (number of citations by other sources being a great one - many scientific journals are measured by this standard). There are objective ways to measure a book's proliferation - number of copies sold/distributed/read. You could probably also even come up with some pseudo-objective measure of a book's impact on an individual... measure the economic change in that person's life as a direct result of the book (giving away money to charity, buying merchandise related to the book, dying for said book)... of course, that would be difficult to isolate, but it is in principle a knowable quantity.

      My selection of influence, proliferation, and impact is arbitrary, yes, but I think it is reasonable. I'm open to hearing an alternative set of standards by which we could determine the "importance" of a work. If you are arguing that the word "important" is meaningless and arbitrary, though, I won't get in your way. That would just mean that this discussion doesn't really involve Harry Potter or the bible, but whether it is appropriate to assign values to things. It seems to me that importance is a quality that has widely understood meaning and utility and is a helpful way to guide our thinking about things like art, science, and philosophy, but you are free to think otherwise.

    25. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Not really, the point I was actually making is simply that you were bitching at someone for daring to not treat the bible as an important book. I was only really arguing for the sake of that - I think it's arrogant to demand someone treat something with respect just because you think it's deserved, even if they do not.

      Did it really not cross your mind to consider that perhaps whilst it may be important to you, there are many others of us who really could not give the slightest shit about it nor see any merit in it?

      To me a book that is a factually incorrect portrayal of history muddled with a bit of fantasy doesn't become important simply because some people are gullible enough to take it as gospel (literally). I'd rather place more importance on works that have actually furthered humanity, whether it's Plato's writings on philosophy, Newton's principia, or Turing and Godel's papers on computability theory. All of these have had a much more drastic impact on furthering progress for humanity. The Bible? It's just an old story book that far too many people put too much weight on - that's my view, don't bitch at people if they have the same opinion and hence refuse to treat it with respect.

      The problem is that the Bible offers nothing really unique, if it's the philosophy within you're after then it's basically a rehashing of older more foundational works. If it's historical perspective then it's of little merit because it's no more historically accurate than any other work of fiction - you can point to some events in the bible and say something like this roughly happened, but you can similarly point to the battles of middle earth and claim they are references to human events.

      I do not think mere number of buyers of a book over the years is in itself a measure of importance or value - christ, the Sun newspaper and The Daily Mail have been the UK's most popular papers but it doesn't mean they have the most value, merit, or worth given that they're normally factually incorrect - for the 3 million that do buy that tosh there's another 57 million that have opted not to buy one of them. Many others will agree so don't try and pretend their point has no merit because they don't attach the same arbitrary value of worth to it as you do.

    26. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by werepants · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't get all riled up here - I'm not really saying that anybody ought to like the bible, or consider its contents valuable, or even respect it. Really, I'm just saying that, according to most reasonably objective criteria that we might use to quantify the "importance" of a work, the bible is certainly going to be among the top contenders.

      It seems to me that you want to call the bible unimportant because you dislike it, see inaccuracies within the text, or believe that it has had a net negative influence on humanity. That is another discussion entirely - a work can be "important" yet have had a major negative influence on humanity (indeed, it might be important specifically BECAUSE of that negative influence). Consider Mein Kampf. Accuracy shouldn't really enter into it either, because that would exclude all fiction, and that would mean that we see the Principia as less important since relativity is more factually correct. Or, the works of Aristotle - Aristotle is rightly considered an important philosopher, but his philosophy essentially set human progress back about 2000 years because he was so opposed to using factual evidence in philosophy. His theories about gravity and inertia (and hell, the number of people's teeth) were completely wrong. He and his followers actively destroyed works by previous philosophers (Democritus, Aristarchus) who were making steps in astronomy and rudimentary atomic theory that would not be matched until Copernicus and Galileo.

      Please don't think that I'm trying to tell you love or respect the bible because of its intrinsic properties, age, or out of religious reverence. It is, as you say, just a book. But there's a reason that entirely non-religious scholars devote their lives to researching this book - it is undeniably an important part of human history.

    27. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Hey, don't get all riled up here - I'm not really saying that anybody ought to like the bible, or consider its contents valuable, or even respect it"

      Right, but the person I was responding to originally was:

      "By doing that, you treated an important book with total disregard and disrespect."

      Why do you think I responded in an "Oh no, god forbid anyone defy the important book!" manner?

      "It seems to me that you want to call the bible unimportant because you dislike it"

      I want to call it unimportant because I do not deem it to be important. I've already explained why, I am not alone. If I viewed it as important, I would own a copy, I don't, because to me, it's not.

      This means that contrary to the OP's claims that we shouldn't treat it with disregard or disrespect it doesn't matter the level of importance, respect, or regards with which he holds it. Anyone who doesn't view it as important is free to treat it with as much disrespect and disregard as they see fit, and not be condemned for doing so.

    28. Re:But we weren't there so SEE... by werepants · · Score: 1

      Ok - I agree with you mostly on your rebuttals to the OP - he(or she) was getting fairly high-and-mighty about the bible, and there is no obligation to treat any work with more "respect" than another, as far as I'm concerned. Outside of a religious context, I still think the bible is important (as in playing a significant role in the course of humanity and the lives of many humans throughout history), but someone telling you not to "disrespect" it is merely projecting religious values on others, and I certainly wouldn't defend that.

  6. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

    Same people. Primitive GPS was really bad but people still blindly followed directions.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  7. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Depends on the varient of the theory. One of those is that there were multiple diasporas of early humans out of Africa, but most of the early explorers died out in the ice ages or other calamities, while others may have survived longer to become the various off shoots of the human tree found in the fossil records. I'd say that idea doesn't really suffer from this find, if anything it strengthens it and establishes that humans must have started expanding out of their ancestral homelands much sooner than many may have thought and certainly doesn't prevent all of us current humans from from being decended from a much more recent Mitochondrial Eve that lived in Africa approx 100,000-200,000 years ago.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  8. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    It would have been H. erectus, and since we view them,as members of genus Homo, it doesn't seem a huge stretch to call them humans.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not homo sapiens in another article they identified Homo heidelbergensis

    unfortunately, they were quickly eroded by the sea and no long term study was possible to see if it was just foot shaped depressions or actual footprints

    a day late and short on info, woe unto slashdot

  10. Messed up teeth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can the footprints tell us if they had crooked teeth?

  11. The mammoth in the room by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    They said well it's possible they were a lot more advanced than we thought. You think? Unless there was a land bridge or glacier linking France and England, that means they were ship builders.

    1. Re:The mammoth in the room by Geeky · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was a land bridge at the time - in fact until quite recently.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    2. Re:The mammoth in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..Unless there was a land bridge or glacier linking France and England,

      Oh, look, just Google the English Channel..these footprints are approx half a million years older than that event..

      (Captcha: disband, quite apposite, considering the current climes here..and rearrange these two words into a well-known phrase Beta, Fuck..)

    3. Re:The mammoth in the room by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      http://arstechnica.com/science...">Ars has an interesting take on this question, which does not require full ships.

      And because I'm mobile and went through enough trouble on your behalf already, you may on your own find more about suggestions that people have essentially rafted about the world longer than we have had actual ships.

      In addition to land bridges and other possibilities, it is very easy to imagine without requiring ship building, unless you spend no time reading or thinking about how ancient people lived.

      Ships are the obvious and sole answer if you lived in the past hundred years, but might they have built weather balloons created by the gas from volcanic vents? Domesticated flying dinosaurs? Tamed dolphins? Oh no, ships are not the only possibility.

    4. Re:The mammoth in the room by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The English channel is said to have been cut by a single massive flood from an natural ice dam that burst toward the end of one of the "recent" ice ages. Humans were most likely living on the land bridge at the time. The loose rubble it left behind is why they had so much trouble finding a suitable path for the channel tunnel.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:The mammoth in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds more like it. Land Bridges allowing more migration across the ever sifting continents.

  12. Re:Join the slashcott farewell: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by nietsch · · Score: 1

    Yes, I have read in the article that it presumably was 'Homo antecessor'. Species determination fromsets of footprints is very hard. We are 'homo sapiens' so calling it human is a bit of a stretch.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  14. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    multiple diasporas are strongly supported by fossil and tool evidence

    this is just the first example of footprints as far north as Britain

    There is no clear proof that these were (they have already washed away) anything more than depressions that looked like footprints

  15. Arthur Philip Dent by denisbergeron · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's obviously footprint of Arthur Philip Dent when he was back in the past abord the phone's cleaner spaceship.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
    1. Re:Arthur Philip Dent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obviously footprint of Arthur Philip Dent when he was back in the past abord the phone's cleaner spaceship.

      Hmm, the 'B' ark landed in the London area..then there was the trip to Norway..(looks at map)..I think we have a winner!

  16. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    um.... no
    It is pretty well established that homo species originated from Africa
    In this case, Homo heidelbergensis, has fossil record in Africa going back 1.3 million years, with other significant finds in Spain
    Everything (particularly the 'tapering' of evidence) points to small populations of varying homo species leaving Africa and spreading wherever they could walk

  17. where are jesus's foot prints by maxwells+daemon · · Score: 1

    This has so many problems. Number one. the photograph is undated, so who knows the reference point for the footprint dating? Number two. the lens cap is obviously intelligently designed. This foot print is 4000 years old. Max.

    1. Re:where are jesus's foot prints by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Jesus didn't leave any footprints anywhere, because his feet never touched the ground. He could walk on water, so I guess he just sort of floated around everywhere.

      He must have looked like Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  18. Mr. and Mrs. Piltdown? by shankarunni · · Score: 1

    On a summer's beach outing with the family?

  19. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Sique · · Score: 1, Informative

    And why is it called Homo heidelbergensis? Heidelberg (for Americans: Heidelburg) is neither in Africa nor in Spain. (Yes, the first remainings of H. heidelbergensis were found on a graveyard(!) in Heidelberg, Germany).

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  20. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by fermion · · Score: 2
    My view is it like the human population is continuously attempting to expand. The estimates that are in place now reflect when the expansions led to widespread colonization. For instance we may say that Australia had not human inhabintants prior to 50K years ago, but that does not mean it is impossible that we might find a small family group prior to that. After all, it was 200 years between the rediscovery of the continent and the first colony.

    In any case I don't know where your data comes from. There was significant population in Europe almost two million years ago, with significant finds correlating to this one 1 million years ago. It is true that Neandertal was a couple hundred thousand years ago, but that was a species thing, not the presence of Hominidae.

    It is true that through the 20th century the single migration theory out of africa was the preeminent explanation for how humans migrated. However, we are no seeing the picture is more complex.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  21. And .... they're gone by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    The footprints themselves, which survived for almost 1 million years, won't be there. Two weeks after they were uncovered, North Sea tides had washed them away.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  22. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reading is food for your brain
    It is also called Homo rhodesiensis, because it was found in Rhodesia as well
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

  23. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

    You're over-exaggerating the out-of-placedness of these footprints.

    Do you know what multiple ice ages does to the surface? Britain and especially southern Britain is just southern enough that some fossils could have survived. It seems fairly likely that there were humans, either Homo Erectus or some closely related species, all the way up in northern Scandinavia between the several ice ages over the last million years, but we will probably never find evidence that they were there.

  24. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

    The researchers said the humans who left the footprints may have been related to Homo antecessor, or "pioneer man," whose fossilized remains have been found in Spain. That species died out about 800,000 years ago.

    Direct quote. Fuck me, I won't have to try very hard to boycott.

  25. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is England, it will be called Homo Swishpooferectus, (For the rest of the world) an early ancestor to the current Queen of England; Elton John.
    Found in a pub near South London, stuck under a table in a back booth.

  26. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Time travelling Incas?

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  27. My book is better than your book...... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Was anyone THERE at THAT TIME to OBSERVE exactly when and by whom the footprints were made?

    Yes, someone WAS there at the time as a matter of fact.
    One of the footprint makers THEMSELVES, informed me in a vision, Just exactly how the footprints were made, and who made them.

    Their names were Bob, Harry, and Alley Oop. The infamous Oop brothers. They took a wrong turn leaving 'The Cave'(a popular local pub at the time), and ended up on the beach by mistake.
    Now their blunder was recorded for history.

    And further more, I'll be writing a book detailing all of my visions(sent by Harry Oop), and the book will also have all the answers to everything.

    *teaser from upcoming book*
    It was Bob Oop that discovered friction made fire, as he slid down a steep embankment. He later remarked that it was handy there was a creek nearby, or the discovery of firemaking might have been delayed by centuries if he had burnt up then, and it made his hemorrhoids act up!
    ;-)

    On a less sarcastic note, why don't you keep your myths and cults out of a science discussion.
    Your myths have no useful information for the discussion, just like my 'Oop brothers' fabricated story above....NOTHING.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:My book is better than your book...... by cusco · · Score: 1

      If you had watched the Nye/Ham debate the other day (and you really should, it's hilarious in places) you would have realized the OP was simply channeling Ham's "arguments" from the debate. Not quite, but almost, "woosh".

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  28. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Sique · · Score: 1

    I don't doubt that H. heidelbergensis indeed lived in Spain and Africa, but additionally, he lived in Central Europe.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  29. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    "Science needs to be open to new ideas"

    I'll tell him when he gets back in.

    From yo momma's house...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  30. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    Depends on how you define "human." The people who left these footprints would probably be recognizable to us as, well, people, i.e. genus Homo, but would also recognizably very different from any people living today, i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens. The vast bulk of evidence points to successive waves of hominins arising in Africa and migrating outward, with the last such group being us. And since Homo is about two and a half million years old as best we can tell, there's was plenty of time for members of the species that left these footprints, probably Homo antecessor, to do just that.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  31. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just one of many proofs/evidences, that not all humans originated from Africa, that we have been walking this earth for millions of years. So evolution doesn't exist, and those stupid Americans with there intelligent design, which should originate 600 ? or 6000 years. Our origin is far greater than most people today believe...

    We only need to really watch all the proof that's there. And not discard everything that doesn't fit in our way of life...

  32. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Arker · · Score: 1

    Homo *sapiens* migrated out of africa roughly 100k years ago.

    These are not homo sapiens, they were members of an earlier and now extinct human race which had already spread from Africa to cover Europe and Asia at an earlier time.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  33. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moved around a lot for work.

  34. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    Heidelberg (for Americans: Heidelburg)

    So sorry, but it's Heidelberg here in the States too.

    "berg" = hill, "burg" = city/town.

    Which is not to imply that there are people who can't spell Heidelberg here - after all, there are people who can't spell "their" here....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  35. Proof that the Doctor was there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's proof that time travel is real. I bet if they looked for it, they will locate the imprint of the Tardis.

  36. RE: the early explorers died out..calamities by nicoleb_x · · Score: 0

    "the early explorers died out in the ice ages or other calamities"

    You human centric slob! The earth is what is important and an ice age or anything else (except human occupation) was NOT a calamity for the earth. The earth is OK with almost everything including asteroid hits, ice ages, super volcanoes and plate tectonics. But humanoids burning hydrocarbons? No way!

  37. Shennanigans? by Toad-san · · Score: 2

    Look as closely at the "footprints" as you can in these images:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

    And then consider this statement:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
    "Of the 50 or so examples recorded, only around a dozen were reasonably complete - and only two showed the toes in detail. Tragically, although a full photogrammetric and photographic record has been made, all but one of the prints were rapidly destroyed by incoming tides before they could be physically lifted."

    Sooooo .. they existed (presumably buried by the seaside) for almost a million years .. appear, and then are DESTROYED by the next incoming tide?

    Riiiii-ight.

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

      That's how erosion works. The rocks are protected until they reach the surface level, at which point they are subject to erosion. And at Happisburgh the shoreline is receding rapidly due to erosion, hence the footprint surface disappearing in weeks once exposed is plausible.

    2. Re:Shennanigans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      PhD archaeologist here.

      It's incredibly common for formerly stable artifacts removed from a state of archaeo-geological stasis to rapidly degrade once exposed to a completely new set of formation factors. These can include air, light, water, or mechanical action.

      I myself have seen Roman Fresco fragments fade from a state of brilliant color to near colorlessness in less than 20 seconds when exposed to air by excavation. Similarly, these footprints were protected from air, light, and most importantly hydrological action by a relatively hard and impermeable layer of overburden. As soon as that was removed, the friable substrate the footprints were in was rapidly washed away.

    3. Re:Shennanigans? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yes, they'd been covered by sand for many thousands of years and when that was eventually washed away to the point the rock was exposed it didn't take long for the rock to be weathered away.

      They weren't in open air or fully exposed to the sea for the last 800,000 years if that's what you're thinking. If they had been then given the UK's population density don't you think someone might have stumbled across them before now?

  38. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Heidelbergenisis is pretty hard to spell and pronounce. Homo Heildelbergvariousrandomplacesinanarcbetweenafricaandnorway would be quite a larger mouthful.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  39. Shennanigans? by Toad-san · · Score: 2

    I haven't walked the seashore. I haven't examined the sediments (and never will now, apparently). I'm certainly not the bearer of an archeology sheepskin from some exalted university.

    But ...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/i...

    Does anyone see more than two prints in any sort of logical and likely walking pattern? You know, one in front of the other, left foot, right foot? No, I didn't think so.

    "Of the 50 or so examples recorded, only around a dozen were reasonably complete - and only two showed the toes in detail. Tragically, although a full photogrammetric and photographic record has been made, all but one of the prints were rapidly destroyed by incoming tides before they could be physically lifted."

    That's odd: EVERY bare foot print I've ever seen clearly showed the toes (even Bigfoot's!). And how curious, that "footprints" cast in rock-hard sediment that has survived for a million years beside a seaside that's repeatedly changed depth over the milleniums .. suddenly are totally and almost completely destroyed by the very next incoming tide? How .. unfortunate.

    The Happisburgh geology (readily available with the most trivial search) also does not support this. The beach surfaces and their underlying sedimentary structure are NOT a million years old.

    https://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslid...
    http://books.google.com/books?...

    No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying this. Someone was seeing what they wanted to see.

  40. News in from Norfolk.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two pairs of ancient footprints in Norfolk are from a father, mother, and son. Early Norfolk Man had six toes like his modern day cousin/sister/mother.

  41. Re:Green and pleasant land by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    we won't miss you

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  42. These foot prints aren't 800k years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The footprints themselves, which survived for almost 1 million years, won't be there. Two weeks after they were uncovered, North Sea tides had washed them away."

    So they lasted 800k years and then 2 weeks later they were washed away?

    FUCK OFF!

  43. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, Homo Sapiens (proper humans) first appeared about 200kya. However there were other species of "humans" well before that, they too originated from Africa and walked upright. The ice ages regularly pushed the spread of all primates back toward the equator.

    Also if you (gasp) RTFA it tells you that the prints were probably left by Homo Antecessor, (pioneer man), sadly the prints were washed away 2 weeks after they were discovered so we can never know for sure.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  44. Re: the early explorers died out..calamities by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "The Earth does not need saving, we do" - George Carlin.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  45. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    It would have been H. erectus

    TFA says it was probably 'Homo Antecessor'. Wether a particular species of ape is called human or not seems to depend on the hips and skull, AFAIK all apes that walked upright are commonly referred to as humans (or proto-humans) by archaeologists. The rest of us call them "ape men".

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  46. Re:Green and pleasant land by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Seems silly to boycott the classic site, the boycott of the beta needs no organisation, it will happen organically.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  47. Hardly a news by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    BBC article on human presence in Britain one million years ago. With a nice map showing that Britain was not an island at that time.

    1. Re:Hardly a news by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      And the BBC article is from 2010.

  48. Slashcott! by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

    This site used to be great. Even in its latter days, it's been good. That is poised to change. Before long, it will be mediocre, and ordinary.

    I didn't see a problem when Dice Holdings initially bought Slashdot. I figured there would be efforts to drive nerd traffic towards their job listings and such. That was fine. We all need jobs.

    Things have changed now. Beyond the shifts in story choices, the slashvertisements, and so on, something fundamental has changed: Slashdot's owners do not appreciate it.

    Their recent financials show that they have written its value as an asset down to zero. They have legally claimed it to be worthless. That is at the root of what is happening now. They want to fundamentally change the nature of this site in order to remake it into something with big growth potential.

    Beta is just the latest symptom of this disease. It will not be the last. In striving to make it into a site that will bring them a growing user base and growing revenue per user, they have shown a willingness to dumb down the interface in the name of making it more accessible to newcomers, to cast aside essential elements of decade-spanning community culture, and to plow ahead with changes in the face of overwhelmingly negative user feedback.

    This is not going to change. This will not go away. I will not support it.

    I will be gone for this entire week, in protest. While away, I will work to create a new community where things can be run with quality user discussions as the paramount objective.

    Be seeing you.

  49. Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is just your interpretation of how we should interpret certain parts of the Bible, and that there are many countless believers that would find your interpretation silly, even heretical. Once, I had a conversation with an Orthodox Jewish person about whether the Jewish prohibitions against certain foods was due to health concerns of the day. His response was, "No, these are the commandments. We don't follow them because of health issues. We follow them because God said to." That's not even a paraphrasing. You can't accuse someone of cherry picking bits of the Bible or interpretations of Bible passages without acknowledging that believers do also as a critical part of their specific faith, do the very same thing. I applaud you for trying to find logic in those verses. It can't be all an illogical though poetic mess, but you can't just presume that these laws had any rational basis. People were NOT smarter then than they are now. They weren't beholden to any great esoteric wisdom, and in fact, in those days, everyone was looking for the next Messiah. People constantly claimed being messiahs. The people then who wrote those verses were subject to the same prejudices and irrational knee-jerk reactions as people are today. Somewhere in the Bible is an ancient version of Freedom Fries.

  50. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    If they were in Norfolk its probably just Homoamphibius they dredge these guys up every now and again to appear on Dr Who

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  51. Righto, old chap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not modern humans, not sapiens sapiens. Some branch of interbreed between neanderthal and homo erectus

  52. Re: Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous calumny of the English is pathetic. Many of you Americans are descended from the same English poofs. So much for the vaunted "special relationship". Our young men are dieting in Afghanistan and Iraq to aid America. Is this the sort of homophobic rubbish we have to hear as a reward. Shame on you!

  53. bipedal apes long before smart apes by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Evidence of bipedialism in foot prints and foot & hip bones nearly three million years ago. Modest tool use at that time. Human size brains in Neandetahl race 300K years ago. Modern complex culture- clothing, art, fine tools- only 80K years ago.

  54. Re:Science needs to be open to new ideas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are people here who can't spell the word "to". That alarms me more than slashdot beta; all the people who want to be nerds but never read a book in their lives that they weren't forced to. I crings at many of the aliterate, almost illiterate postings here in the last several years, and it's getting worse. Please mod illiteracy, aliteracy, and general ignorance down! ...too bad idiots get mod points, too.

    And I think those are the people Dice is catering to. Ot should that be "cratering?" I fear my beloved slashdot is not long for this world, alas.

  55. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I thought the Earth was only 9,000 years old?

  56. Re:What does this mean for the "out of Africa" mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Honey are you sure we're in Africa yet?"

    "Yea, yea just a few more steps"