Slashdot Mirror
Almost All Bronze Age Artifacts Were Made From Meteorite Iron (sciencealert.com)
dryriver shares a report from Science Alert: According to a new study, it's possible that all iron-based weapons and tools of the Bronze Age were forged using metal salvaged from meteorites. The finding has given experts a better insight into how these tools were created before humans worked out how to produce iron from its ore. While previous studies had found specific Bronze Age objects to be made from meteoric metal -- like one of the daggers buried with King Tutankhamun -- this latest research answers the question of just how widespread the practice was. Albert Jambon, from the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France, studied museum artifacts from Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and China, analyzing them using an X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer to discover they all shared the same off-world origins. "The present results complementing high quality analyses from the literature suggest that most or all irons from the Bronze Age are derived from meteoritic iron," writes Jambon in his published paper. "The next step will be to determine where and when terrestrial iron smelting appeared for the first time."
I'm clueless about this... what's the difference between meteoric iron and iron ore? Is it just purity? If so, why is it that meteoric iron is more pure?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
it's possible that all iron-based weapons and tools of the Bronze Age were forged using metal salvaged from meteorites.
You don't say! "Before we could make X on our own, we used whatever X was lying around"?
Ezekiel 23:20
?
http://proup-god.pp.ua/
I think the point being made is not where iron comes from. The interesting thing is that humans had iron tools and weapons in the Bronze Age before we knew how to get it out of the ground. Apparently, it wasn't really clear how that happened. The Bronze Age is so named because we knew how to cast bronze, the Iron Age came after. So where did we get the iron? Meteorites.
Pretty cool.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Gods gave us the holy metal of iron from the skies above, to be appreciated and valued. But then the giants wanted more..
All artifacts are made from meteorite iron? Does that include clay pots? The write up is accurate, do a better job with the title.
I would expect this would be also cause the root myths behind many religions are lore.
Tell me if this story sounds familiar.
Nobody peasant or at best low level nobility, wandering the wilderness, then out of the sky came the indestructible weapon, or from a magical rock a wonderful weapon is found.
Compared to bronze a weapon made from Iron would seem nearly magical, combine that they had found it from a rock that had flew from the sky.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That is all.
The point of the article is that human evolution is really just one big alien experiment. In this case aliens were dropping chunks of metal on us, so we can use it to evolve our societies.
Though maybe I'm reading too much into the article.
King Tut
Now, if I'd known
They'd line up just to see him,
I'd taken all my money
And bought me a museum
You say they were made from "meteorites" but all we really know is that the metal didn't come from earth. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Indeed - summary is a bit light on critical thinking (I didn't RTFA, maybe that's better?). The important take-away here is: (Bronze age) Mankind a bit cleverer than we thought it was. It also highlights how far the knowledge of how to do this spread, and to some extent at what speed.
I enjoy the idea of what people would have thought about those items. Just very pragmatic that it's just some other metal, or looking at their bronze weapons and then the special one that someone important was given and thinking it was very different. I can see how that could lend credence to the idea of it being magic or somehow special. If they knew it fell from space, then it would literally be other worldly to them.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
In the Bronze Age - the period before we had discovered how to smelt iron - we had to use naturally occurring iron if we wanted iron artefacts. Well, no shit Sherlock. That's why it was still the Bronze Age and not the Iron Age.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
New studies suggest that all the ancient weaponry actually came from loot boxes that the alien cult named Activision spread all over the inhabited world in order to extract revenue from planet Earth. Not content with microtransactions in the form of animal teeth and leather, it taught their subjects how to make shiny coins from metallic stones.
Just saying.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
You are very confused and not understanding the issue at all. Meteoric iron is elemental iron, already smelted as it were. Mined iron is ore, terrestrial deposits of oxidized iron, not from meteors that worked their way into the eartch.
This ore needs to be mined, then heated very hot (relative to making bronze) to extract the elemental iron from the ore to a usable elemental metal. So this finding explains how humans could have a limited quantity of iron weapons/tools before the discovery/invention of mining and smelting iron ore. The latter is what gave us the Iron Age.
Two very different processes, two very different technologies. Yes, it all ultimately came from the same place. So did every f-ing thing. Why do we bother to talk about anything?
I would expect this would be also cause the root myths behind many religions are lore.
Tell me if this story sounds familiar.
Nobody peasant or at best low level nobility, wandering the wilderness, then out of the sky came the indestructible weapon, or from a magical rock a wonderful weapon is found.
Compared to bronze a weapon made from Iron would seem nearly magical, combine that they had found it from a rock that had flew from the sky.
Depends on the iron. The earliest iron age weapon were inferior to bronze weapons, but were just much much cheaper as iron is significantly more abundant. Not until practices were establish to get some accidental consistency in carbon levels did the quality improve, but when the carbon levels are consistent in iron tools we tend to call it steel (though all ancient iron tools and weapons are "technically" steel of varying quality).
Possibly, but my guess is that most of the time they didn't actually see the meteor fall or know it came from space. They just found metal "rocks" on the ground that looked a certain way and they knew they could make tools and weapons out of them.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Two very different processes, two very different technologies.
And two different energy budgets. That's the history of mankind: progress correlates with an ever increasing amount of available energy
And it's going on to the day.
I would expect this would be also cause the root myths behind many religions are lore.
Tell me if this story sounds familiar.
Nobody peasant or at best low level nobility, wandering the wilderness, then out of the sky came the indestructible weapon, or from a magical rock a wonderful weapon is found.
Compared to bronze a weapon made from Iron would seem nearly magical, combine that they had found it from a rock that had flew from the sky.
That's the idea behind some theories about the origin of the legend of Excalibur: it was a steel sword existing in a time when they were extremely rare and everyone else had bronze weapons so it would seem magically strong and being made of meteoritic iron could have morphed into "the sword in the stone" and such as the King Arthur myth took shape.
Like, *everyone* had a +4 axe made from star iron! Thats a whole lot of loot. How did anyone manage to make their saving throws?
One was forged in the heart of a dying star...
Depends on the iron. The earliest iron age weapon were inferior to bronze weapons, but were just much much cheaper as iron is significantly more abundant.
But meteoritic iron isn't exactly pig iron. It's mostly quite strong nickel alloys, stronger than iron or unhardened steel. Combined with its extreme rarity it would be the stuff of legends.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There was no iron ore mined from the earth before people had figured out how to mine iron ore from the earth. Brilliant, just brilliant.
And two different energy budgets
Budgets are human concepts that are irrelevant to nature
That's the history of mankind: progress correlates with an ever increasing amount of available energy
And it's going on to the day.
Heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy? Without a basic knowledge of science it's hard to engage in a scientific discussion.
We'll make great pets
Because when people figured out how to smelt iron, that was the Iron Age.
Yes, it all ultimately came from the same place. So did every f-ing thing. Why do we bother to talk about anything?
Because humans like to talk about how awesome they are and celebrate themselves. On occasion we even make statues of ourselves to admire. ;)
We'll make great pets
The important take-away here is: (Bronze age) Mankind a bit cleverer than we thought it was
Oh we already knew how clever Bronze Age man was. They invented very sophisticated superstition to brain-wash and enslave massive groups of people. Making Bronze Age weapons from iron ore meteorites is nothing... well I suppose it helped them fight tribal wars based on said superstition.
We'll make great pets
Bronze is a harder metal than pure iron. That means that it keeps a better edge and is less likely to bend. (Both written and archaeological shows that iron swords bending in battle was an actual problem - one of the Roman historians even wrote about how their enemies had to stop mid-battle and straighten their swords!)
The thinking is that the bronze age didn't end because iron was better for weapons, but the bronze age ended because tin and copper were relatively rare compared to iron and frequently needed to be traded long distance. When the bronze age saw the collapse of its trading networks, people turned to local resources, which meant iron.
It was only much later, when we developed better metallurgy, that we could consistently make iron alloys that were better than bronze.
So were these iron weapons more ceremonial? Prized because they are rare? Or indicative of regional trade issues?
On the contrary, budgets are very relevant to nature. All life has to maintain a nitrogen budget, for example. And while humans have had a severe effect on the carbon budget in the atmosphere, it existed long before humans did.
Yes, I've heard of it. It isn't relevant. The Earth is not a closed system (as it is constantly receiving massive amounts of energy from the Sun) .And as the OP said, "increasing amount of available energy". There is no Law of Conservation of Available Energy, particularly in a system that is not closed.
Systemd drove all the Sea Peoples into the Mediterranean! Are we doomed as well?
"Early Egyptian tools made of iron contained nickel, implying a possible meteorite source. The British still refer to the study of iron and steel metallurgy as "siderurgy" from the Greek term for iron, sideros, which means "from the heavens." Implements made of iron date back to about 2000 B.C. These implements were ..."
https://books.google.pt/books?id=57jzHvkZrCQC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=iron+sideros&source=bl&ots=iveTKdBR1Q&sig=bKxO7JSX3a1GkWIKxrcY8wKm3vM&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifx9W-3PrXAhWEJhoKHWt3DwQQ6AEIWDAK
English[edit]. Etymology 1[edit]. From Latin sdus, sideris, ("constellation"). Prefix[edit]. sidero-. Related to stars or constellations, as sidereal relationships. Etymology 2[edit]. From Ancient Greek (sídros, “iron”). Prefix[edit]. sidero-. Related to iron or steel, as in siderosis (fibrosis caused by iron deposits).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sidero
Budgets are human concepts that are irrelevant to nature
Heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy?
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction here?
If you buy into any of the bicameral mind concept, it wasn't even much of an idea to form religions. They just didn't know any better because their assumed their voice of consciousness was a religious deity.
On the contrary, budgets are very relevant to nature. All life has to maintain a nitrogen budget, for example. And while humans have had a severe effect on the carbon budget in the atmosphere, it existed long before humans did.
We have a null hypothesis here. Some living creatures regulate nitrogen usage. You are claiming that there is a connection between that natural process and the anthropmorphic concept of a "budget" yet you haven't demonstrated any evidence to establish the connection. Surely you are familiar with the Null Hypothesis correct? It would be more correct to say that these are natural processes that aren't really all the orderly compared the order that human beings strive for and imagine in their minds.
This is a common mistake and it's because by default humans want to project themselves onto other natural processes. We are a very small part of things and the majority of the universe is not anything like us. This is the nature of man's anthropomorphic arrogance.
Yes, I've heard of it. It isn't relevant. The Earth is not a closed system (as it is constantly receiving massive amounts of energy from the Sun) .And as the OP said, "increasing amount of available energy". There is no Law of Conservation of Available Energy, particularly in a system that is not closed.
The fact that you didn't mention the universe itself in this comment seems to indicate a lack of science education. I fear it would not be productive for me to pose to you a question about available energy in the context of the universe for fear that you would respond with another nonsense proposition that seems to owe to a lack of science education. If you want a better understanding of the universe and physics, watch Cosmos especially the old episodes with Carl Sagan. He can educate you much better than I can. It's a shame he is no longer with us.
We'll make great pets
If you buy into any of the bicameral mind concept, it wasn't even much of an idea to form religions. They just didn't know any better because their assumed their voice of consciousness was a religious deity.
For people like me that have a fairly high degree of mental discipline with regard to regulating thoughts and emotions to direct them purposefully, it is hard for me to imagine people who may have thought like that or possibly still do. But I can see that may have played a factor and might explain some human behavior we still observe today. I can make any voice speak in my head in any way I decide. I could have Bugs Bunny read Shakespeare or I can have silence and it requires a negligible amount of effort. It's all determined by what I decide to think about. I don't really know any other form of thought so it is difficult for me to imagine others who lack the mental to discipline to do what I have always done... This is probably why I prefer to be alone because it's peaceful and I enjoy silence or perhaps I enjoy the absence of mental chatter so I can hear the wind, birds and other sounds more clearly.
We'll make great pets
Holy crap you're conceited. In other words, you've seen Cosmos therefore you have a "science education", and it's not worth wasting your time on people that lack a "science education".
Get over yourself.
You're obsessed with anthropomorphism and spending more time explaining that than realizing that the GP is right. "Budgets" can be observed naturally, such as in conservation of energy (which you refer to). Any conservation law naturally reflects a constraint on availability of a physical property (mass, energy, momentum, etc), and that is the equivalent of a budget (in monetary terms a budget reflects a constraint on availability of money).
The universe is a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system in the context of many processes.
The Bronze Age isn't so named because we knew how to cast bronze. We already knew how to cast metal during the Copper Age. The Copper Age was when we learned to refine ore (de-oxidize it) to create metal. The Bronze Age was when we learned that mixing two different metals together in certain combinations and ratios could create an alloy (bronze is a combination of copper and tin) which was stronger or had more desirable properties than either of its constituent metals on their own.
And as has been pointed out in another followup comment, iron isn't necessarily better than bronze for making a sword. It's just cheaper. Even today iron and steel (alloy of iron and carbon, and often other metals) don't sit at the top of the engineering strength chart. They sit at the top of the strength per unit cost chart.
Bzzzt! Thank you for playing.
Arthur was somewhere between the late-400 CE to early 500CE. That's about two thousand years after the end of the Bronze Age.
And before you try to argue that, *every* story and legend has him *after* the Roman Legions left Britain.
TFA would come off as more sciencey if artifacts was spelled correctly in the title.
This is really news!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Bronze is a harder metal than pure iron. That means that it keeps a better edge and is less likely to bend.
Both the first and the second sentence is wrong.
First of all, bronze is a lot of different things, but the Rockwell hardness scale scores of various bronze alloys available at the time are in the 40-65 range. That's certainly much harder than copper, which is at 10 on the same scale, but cast iron is at 86. I.e. much higher than bronze. Even modern bronzes, like aluminium and silicon bronze, are less hard than cast iron, although they come closer.
As for keeping an edge, that is related to factors that's not hardness, like ductility and chipping resistance. A stiffer (not harder) blade can resist the edge bending, but can also crack easier. And some metals have a crystallization pattern that makes them more prone to chipping, even with the same hardness. The edge folding over slightly is often preferable to the blade shattering or nicking in use.
This is why chefs use a butcher's steel to straighten the edge of the knife.
Meteoritic iron differs significantly from cast iron (more nickel, less carbon), but your point still holds. An investigation into the hardness of meteorites found Rockwell B hardness ranging from 60 to 92.
My source, among others, was Mark Miodownik. Wikipedia also claims that bronze was harder than iron, and cites the Smithells Metals Reference Book, 8th Edition, ch. 22.
What's your source? What alloys are you considering?
Egyptions so silly. While you were investing in iron age tech, Moses was dominating with wululu. Do you even Age of Empires?
Cold worked bronze is really harder at a reasonable tin content than pure annealed iron. Cast iron is hard because it has a high carbon content, that is not generally available in the bronze age, or in meteors...It is also useless for swords as it is would break as soon as you try to use it
But I agree that it is pretty complicated, and a lot depends on how the metal is worked.
There are bronze swords with a VPH (I find rockwell a mess when comparing metals) reported above 200. That is as good as some steels. The problem is hard bronze (with a lot of tin) gets brittle. Not much good if your sword breaks in half during battle. There are some chinese swords (not bronze age IIRC) with a tin content over 20% on the edge, but not in the core of the sword. This solves that issue, but requires vastly improved metal working.
With meteoric iron, you would have a high nickel content and this will make it much harder (and again more brittle). Depending on how well it is worked, I think it is quite possible to make a superior weapon from it (compared to bronze age bronze weapons). There is a report of an Etruscan lance-head forge-welded with layers of meteoric iron that approaches 250 VPH.
This all still pales in comparison to quenched steel blades (~700 VPH).
Sources:
https://www.amazon.com/Knight-Blast-Furnace-History-Metallurgy/dp/9004124985
https://www.amazon.com/Sword-Crucible-History-Metallurgy-European/dp/9004227830
Aha, "He pulled a sword from the stone."
Now it makes sense.
Like quickly pulling something out of your hat:
He pulled a "rapid" out of his hat!
What a great magician!
I might note that while the universe is generally believed to be a closed system and most theories in use today work from that assumption, it has not been proved to be so, and some theories have been advanced on the assumption that it is not so.
as I noted above he is talking about cast iron. That is useless in this context.
Talking about the advancement of civilization and available energy "in the context of the universe" is not the correct context. The advancement of civilization takes place in the context of various small regions of the planet Earth; that is the appropriate context to discuss it in.
I would *hate* to be your co-worker.
There's actually a word in German that describes you: Korinthenkacker.
Oh my, well thank you for blessing us lowly plebes on /. with a description of your amazing mental capabilities. ...
It seems hard to believe now, but I find it kind of compelling because in the absence of any compelling evidence/information/communication to the contrary it seems like the "voice in your head" could possibly be thought of as a separate entity or at least something different than your animal impulses.
Iron was not cheaper than bronze until it was learned how to smelt it from ore. When the only iron was from meteorites and native iron, it was extremely rare.
I don't know whether iron is better for making swords than bronze, but steel certainly is. I know this because for centuries, people who could afford "the best that money can buy", like knights and samurai, had their swords made from steel.
AC troll. Can't even be bothered to ask what my educational background is and immediately jump to the presupposition that my science background is solely composed of watching a couple episodes. I have two words for you: FUCK YOU
We'll make great pets
It seems hard to believe now, but I find it kind of compelling because in the absence of any compelling evidence/information/communication to the contrary it seems like the "voice in your head" could possibly be thought of as a separate entity or at least something different than your animal impulses.
I'd go with animal impulses but in my case, I don't have any spontaneous/autonomous voices. I can purposefully do "think talk" to work through a thought process. Everyone can do that and control what the thoughts are. Those who have a voice occur spontaneously and can't control it have symptoms of schizophrenia.
We'll make great pets
Oh my, well thank you for blessing us lowly plebes on /. with a description of your amazing mental capabilities. ...
Thank you for such a wonderful contribution to the discussion
We'll make great pets
So where did we get the iron? Meteorites.
Pretty cool.
Yes, pretty cool, but we've known about meteorite iron for quite some time. Long enough for it to be a thing in D&D. I think there are even some large meteors around that were still being "mined" for iron until fairly recently when they were instead protected. I think the take away with this study is that ALL bronze age iron came from meteorites. Previously, it seems that it was thought that iron smelting was known in the bronze age but not really used until it absolutely had to be due to disrupted trade routes because bronze was still the superior metal. Instead, it's looking like there was only bronze smelting until the trade routes for tin were disrupted, and then people developed iron smelting which is quote a deviation from how we understood the timeline earlier.
Such as King Arthur.
That is well known since 50 years or more, but nice that a 'new study' confirms it again.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You're making a bullshit semantic argument.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Being clever or not has not much to do with 'technology level'. ... I would call that 'not clever', most people I know can not skin an animal or cut the meat from the bones, or sail a boat ar build a shelter ... sounds all very unclever to me. ... not sure how clever that is.
Most people I ever met don't know why a circle has 360 degrees
But they all handle a smart phone and can even operate difficult to handle micro waves
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Bronce is not harder, it is softer, both than iron and steel.
However it is not as brittle as 'bad' iron/steel.
Bottom line it is not a question of rarity but industry. The indusrty slowly shifted to iron. And a workshop that was producing iron, probably could not afford to habe a second branch for iron.
It might also be a matter of style, who wants an old school bronce knive when he can have a nice glittering steel knive?
Both technologies existed at the same time, e.g. spartan spears had an iron/steal tip. But the tip on the back side was bronce, so was their sword and armor and shield.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm not the same AC, but an impartial person not previously invested in this conversation.
All I can say is wow - you are a complete and utter fucking asshole. You do have an air of superiority. Perhaps you are smart, but what a COMPLETE AND UTTER FUCKING ASSHOLE YOU ARE. JUST A COMPLETE FUCKING DOUCHEBAG. TOTAL. DOUCHE.
For people like me that have a fairly high degree of mental discipline with regard to regulating thoughts and emotions to direct them purposefully,
Mental discipline? You've just said this some posts above [#55703377]:
Can't even be bothered to ask what my educational background is and immediately jump to the presupposition that my science background is solely composed of watching a couple episodes. I have two words for you: FUCK YOU
So much for mental discipline...
A shitty new study did some shoddy science and made some shite conclusions not based in reality.
There wasnâ(TM)t enough meteorites to use to make these tools. More likely, some civilizations could smelt it and others could not.
How is not asking about your scientific background any worse than you declaring youâ(TM)re not going to continue talking to someone because they didnâ(TM)t use the word âoeuniverseâ?
It is hard for you to consider other peoples perspectives? That sounds to me like a rather rigid mind, and frankly pretty limiting...
The interplay of metallurgy and the introduction of iron alloys meant that some swords and irons were harder in some geographys and softer in others. The carboning and nickeling of the iron into early forms of steel left lots of room for variation. So some swords bent in battle and some were wonder weapons.
So that's where all the +5 swords came from.
Really? Meteors falling from the sky are significantly more abundant than the bronze you already found and had been using?
Without electricity, we can't move beyond the iron age because we don't have enough energy to melt the other ores and make aluminum or titanium. One we had fire, not only could we make bronze and iron, we could also get a lot more energy from food. Cooked meat provides far more calories per chew than raw meat.
The thinking is that the bronze age didn't end because iron was better for weapons, but the bronze age ended because tin and copper were relatively rare compared to iron and frequently needed to be traded long distance. When the bronze age saw the collapse of its trading networks, people turned to local resources, which meant iron.
There's some disagreement over this: the collapse of the trading networks could have been caused by increased use of iron weapons causing the collapse of the bronze age civilizations.
Historian Robert Drews discusses this in his book The End of the Bronze Age.
It's not that the iron weapons were necessarily much better at that point. Bronze worker Neil Burridge discusses this on his web site:
"In recent television programme for the BBC, one of my bronze swords was repeatedly stuck against a reproduction of an early iron sword, in a test to show the advantages of iron over bronze. Even though both myself and Hector Cole (the iron sword maker) had advised the programme makers the that the bronze sword would do better than expected, they were very surprised. The bronze sword was more than a match for the iron, both blades received heavy damage. "
Robert Drews argues that ironworking may have been available earlier than previously believed, allowing societies that possessed it to overwhelm established bronze age societies with large numbers of relatively cheap weapons - the scarcity of tin limited the availability of bronze weapons, but iron ore is much more common. Certainly something caused the sudden collapse around 1200 BCE, and there's lot of evidence it was something military.
The book was written 20 years ago, I don't know if there is more recent evidence - not my field.
And increasing technology. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a post-apocalypse society to work its way back up to our current level of technology, or even to sustain any level higher than the Stone Age, because the remaining resources for the Iron Age or the Bronze Age are no longer extractable with those levels of technology. All the easy to mine sources have already been exhausted.
That includes energy. Restarting the Machine Age would be challenging because we've already gotten to all the easy coal and oil. What remains can't be mined or drilled with 19th century tech. Our current renewable sources also require a high degree of technological sophistication; that restarting civilization couldn't make solar panels or wind turbines that work nearly as well as current ones. Nor batteries; it could make lead acid batteries by melting down existing lead and reusing it but not by mining new lead (see the mining problem) and couldn't make fancier things like lithium-ion at all.
So were these iron weapons more ceremonial? Prized because they are rare? Or indicative of regional trade issues?
If they were meteorite iron I'd have to assume they were extremely rare.
Rich people back then would have been a lot like the rich people of today. When you have a bit of money you get the same thing everyone else has, only better. When you have an absurd amount of money you start looking for other ways to show off your wealth, a weapon made from a rock that fell from the friggin' sky is really damn cool.
I stole this Sig
Yeah, ZIFN4B is a fucking piece of shit. And I'm saying that as someone who has a "fairly high degree of mental discipline...." LOL...
He thinks he is above everyone else. All of his comments reek of superiority. I bet his family and co-workers wish he was dead.