One of the best founded estimates of the origin of language is that by Aiello and Dunbar, based on the relationships the primates display regarding neocortex size, group size, and time devoted to "grooming" related to group size. Using neocortex estimates for fossil hominins, they estimate that by about 0.5 million years ago, estimated neocortex sizes indicate group sizes that in turn implicate times spent in grooming that are unfeasible. Dunbar then proposed that language developed as a more effective way of "grooming" than physical grooming: gossiping as a form of virtual "grooming" to enhance bonds between group members (e.g. because you can discuss group members not physically present at that moment). Language thus emerged as a "social glue" in this hypothesis. So far, this is one of the best hypothesis for the origin of language imho, rooted in what appear to be valid socio-biological observations regarding the higher primates, and it places the appearance of language clearly before the appearance of Homo sapiens.
The dates you mention on the other hand, are dates proposed by scholars who by definition place the origin of culture and language with the appearance of "us", anatomically modern Homo sapiens, because they feel it is a prerequisite for the behavioural package designated as "behaviourally modern". As such, that has no clear foundation in anything, it is an assumption. It is founded in an increasingly less corroborated idea that there are major cognitive differences between Homo sapiens and other hominins such as Neandertals.
"Language developed in Africa about 250,000 years ago probably"
And where do you base that on? When language developed is still hotly debated in reality. Some studies suggest it could be twice as old or even older than the date you suggest. No one really knows. The 250 000 date is merely the one picked by those who see the appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens as the start of everything "cultural", without this having any real foundation in facts.
Both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis belong to the genus Homo. Homo means "human". The distinction between "to be or not to be" is at the genus level rather than at the species level.
This is why God invented the disposable e-mail address. Gishpuppy is your best friend (alas not with Facebook - they have banned the use of Gishpuppy addresses).
The problem with ISS daylight visibility is that the illumination angle will be very small - the side facing outward from earth, not to earth, is illuminated. It will reach maximum brightness only in the nighttime sky.
I am a professional early stone age archeologist, so naturally this has my attention. Unfortunately, as long as the stuff is not properly published, there is no way to ascertain the reliability of the claim. The latter will hinge on:
a) are it really stone tools;
b) is the dating reliable (and there is more to this than just lab techniques).
Without clear details having yet been published to judge those, I remain very cautious. SE Asia has a history of dubious claims for stone "tools", and dubious dates attached to (real) stone tools. Partly, this has to do with the complex geology in many parts of the area. Partly this has to do with a persistent old-fashioned typochronological approach to archaeology with some SE Asian scholars (in which primitive looking "must" be old - while they not necessarily are).
Point to consider is that in SE Asia, bifacial tools are present that technologically look like the Acheulean (Lower Palaeolithic handaxe cultures of Africa and Europe), but are in fact Neolithic (i.e. from the last 5000 years).
In answer to some of the earlier comments: when chipped stone comes from high energy fluvial (water-laid) deposits, it is sometimes very difficult to make the distinction between intentionally flaked stone (shaped by human hand) or "geofacts", stone flaked by geological force (like tossing and banging against each other in a high energy stream). The latter sometimes can look very convincing. The same goes for tephrafacts (pseudo-artifacts created in a volcanic environment). Unfortunately, SE Asia with it's high energy monsoonal river systems is an ideal environment for the creation of geofacts. It is also an environment where chronologies are sometimes horribly and notoriously screwed up.
So we have to await publication of the details before we are able to say anything serious about this extraordinary claim.
Humans (the genus Homo) *have* experienced, and survived, several polarity reversals in the past: both short terms events as well as major reversals like the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal 0.8 Ma ago. Some of the smaller duration events (like the Mono Lakes, Laschamp and Blake events) happened while Homo sapiens was already around.
In other words, it seems past examples show we really do not have to fear the end of humanity when the earth geomagnetic filed reverses. There is no record of extinctions tied to reversal events.
There in reality is no real consensus whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of H. sapiens or a separate species. Placing it in a separate species, as some do, has more to do with the wish to keep "us" (Homo sapiens s.s.) unique, than that it has a factual background.
In the same line, it is interesting to read the comments here and see how many of them make a distinction between "humans" (i.e., "us") and Neanderthals.
But why would Neanderthals not be humans too? Because they might (or might not!) be a separate species? Well, they are even by most conservative standards still placed in the genus Homo. Which basically means "human". Is a polar bear not a bear while a brown bear is, because they are different species of bear? Of course not: they are both bears. Likewise, anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals are both humans.
It is interesting to see how many people nevertheless insist they are not. That has all to do with our perception of "us" versus "them" and wish for "us" to be "unique". It's a "genocentric" (and xenophobic) attitude.
The same phenomena is reponsible for the ongoing insistence by some that Neanderthals are necessarily cognitively inferior to us, evolutionary necessarily somewhere inbetween us and apes in cognition. This assumption really has no basis.
Looking at the archaeological record (and I should ad here that I am a paleolithic archaeologist by profession - I research Neanderthal material culture), it is clear that Neanderthals were intelligent beings involved in many activities that were similar to those of anatomically modern humans (and well beyond activities performed by extant apes). They did some things in ways we cannot comprehend, but that does not mean they were less developed cognitively: only that we cannot comprehend it with our cognition (or have been hampered in that, because we assume those differences to be due to a lower level of cognition). Those who do argue for that, merely wish to see it this way.
Neanderthals were not merely "apes". And they were not something alike to mentally retarded humans. They were different, yes. But not necessarily cognitively inferior (note: many of the "arguments" to the contrary you'll find in popular textbooks on the matter, are either outdated or factually incorrect, and the result of looking at the evidence in a very biased way. That has again more to do with the wish to keep "us" unique and at the top, the hero in the grand narrative of human evolution).
Even the fact that Neanderthals got extinct and anatomically modern Homo sapiens did not, does not imply that they were cognitively inferior. You try to argue the same for, for example, Tasmanian aborigines (who are now extinct), and you'll rightly be called a racist.
I was talking about whether it is news-worthy, not whether it is research-worthy. And commenting on some of the odd aspects of this/. news item - such as suggesting that this technique for worm-hunting was somehow unusual and geographically restricted while in fact it is a commonly used one, or at best a variation on a theme.
I agree, this hardly seems news-worthy. Using vibration to bring out worms by sticking a pole, shovel or pitchfork in the ground and shaking it is hardly "unusual" either. Fishermen everywhere on the world have used this method for ages (I've always been told as a kid that the vibrations make the worm think it rains).
Maybe it is unusual only for city-dwelling academics...
Some bird species use the technique too by the way, they trample the ground to bring worms up.
It are estimates from the objects observed brightness. The nominal value (3 meter) is usually based on an assumed albedo of 0.15. Depending on the composition, the true albedo can range between 0.03 (very dark carbonaceous) and 0.22.
With H=30.4 for 2008 TC3 (MPEC 2008-T74), the estimated size range from these albedoes is from 2 to 8 meter, with best estimate 3 meter.
Iron is both denser and darker than the far more common stony meteor
You are wrong there. M-class (iron) and S-class (silicious) objects have similar albedoes: 0.10 - 0.18 resp. 0.10 - 0.22. Carbonaceous objects have significantly lower albedoes (0.03 - 0.09) but are also structurally very weak and highly likely to disintegrate.
The Brunhes-Matuyama reversal at 780000 yrs ago was a major reversal, yes: but within the Brunhes epoch, after 780,000 yrs ago, there were several smaller, i.e. short-lasting, reversals.
It is interesting how both source and the discussion here is almost entirely about the USA versus Russia. The fact that Europe is also involved, and now actually has it's own (unmanned, but there is talk about a manned version) space vehicle to reach the ISS (the ATV) independent of either Russian Soyuz/Progress or American Shuttle flights, is completely ignored. Europeans will also continue to fly aboard Russian Soyuz flights (certainly now Kourou is ready to launch Soyuz rockets).
This already is available. Just use a free tracking software program like Orbitron (www.stoff.pl) and download a timely version of the element set of classified satellites here: http://www.io.com/~mmccants/tles/index.html
And rest assured that the Russians, Chinese, etc., don't need this element set because they already have it from their own tracking networks.
Concerning all these comments about lawsuits, consider this: the company is Dutch based, not US, and the Netherlands does not have the lawsuit culture of the US at all....
So quite probably this is just what it appears to be: a polite inquiry whether they can buy the domain name, for business reasons. No darker motives.
The text being short? That's how we Dutch communicate. We tend to be direct.
"That turns out to be something NASA is more than willing to do for the American side."
You wish. There are over 140 US objects tracked by us amateur satellite trackers which are classified - i.e. they officially do not exist and the only public data on their orbits comes from us amateur trackers. Not NASA, the DoD or any other US government agency.
We basically have this system in my country, the Netherlands. There is a small fee on every blank CD you purchase here, which is meant to cover royalties for music (whether the CD is used or not to burn music on it...). Our country is one of the few where downloading music files is illegal (it is to upload music files though).
Slashdot Mirror
One of the best founded estimates of the origin of language is that by Aiello and Dunbar, based on the relationships the primates display regarding neocortex size, group size, and time devoted to "grooming" related to group size. Using neocortex estimates for fossil hominins, they estimate that by about 0.5 million years ago, estimated neocortex sizes indicate group sizes that in turn implicate times spent in grooming that are unfeasible. Dunbar then proposed that language developed as a more effective way of "grooming" than physical grooming: gossiping as a form of virtual "grooming" to enhance bonds between group members (e.g. because you can discuss group members not physically present at that moment). Language thus emerged as a "social glue" in this hypothesis. So far, this is one of the best hypothesis for the origin of language imho, rooted in what appear to be valid socio-biological observations regarding the higher primates, and it places the appearance of language clearly before the appearance of Homo sapiens.
The dates you mention on the other hand, are dates proposed by scholars who by definition place the origin of culture and language with the appearance of "us", anatomically modern Homo sapiens, because they feel it is a prerequisite for the behavioural package designated as "behaviourally modern". As such, that has no clear foundation in anything, it is an assumption. It is founded in an increasingly less corroborated idea that there are major cognitive differences between Homo sapiens and other hominins such as Neandertals.
"Language developed in Africa about 250,000 years ago probably"
And where do you base that on? When language developed is still hotly debated in reality. Some studies suggest it could be twice as old or even older than the date you suggest. No one really knows. The 250 000 date is merely the one picked by those who see the appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens as the start of everything "cultural", without this having any real foundation in facts.
Both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis belong to the genus Homo. Homo means "human". The distinction between "to be or not to be" is at the genus level rather than at the species level.
Well, I am sure there are underground databanks of creditcard numbers... ;-p
This is why God invented the disposable e-mail address. Gishpuppy is your best friend (alas not with Facebook - they have banned the use of Gishpuppy addresses).
Or "split personality"?
The problem with ISS daylight visibility is that the illumination angle will be very small - the side facing outward from earth, not to earth, is illuminated. It will reach maximum brightness only in the nighttime sky.
In fact, ISS already does rival Venus in brightness during a good pass currently, reaching -4. And I have seen it (and filmed it - see http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2008/02/twice-iss-and-bag-of-other-objects.html) descending to the eastern horizon with the sun only 4 degrees under the western horizon.
And yes, Venus is visible in daylight, if you know where to look.
....here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6264797.html
I am a professional early stone age archeologist, so naturally this has my attention. Unfortunately, as long as the stuff is not properly published, there is no way to ascertain the reliability of the claim. The latter will hinge on:
a) are it really stone tools;
b) is the dating reliable (and there is more to this than just lab techniques).
Without clear details having yet been published to judge those, I remain very cautious. SE Asia has a history of dubious claims for stone "tools", and dubious dates attached to (real) stone tools. Partly, this has to do with the complex geology in many parts of the area. Partly this has to do with a persistent old-fashioned typochronological approach to archaeology with some SE Asian scholars (in which primitive looking "must" be old - while they not necessarily are).
Point to consider is that in SE Asia, bifacial tools are present that technologically look like the Acheulean (Lower Palaeolithic handaxe cultures of Africa and Europe), but are in fact Neolithic (i.e. from the last 5000 years).
In answer to some of the earlier comments: when chipped stone comes from high energy fluvial (water-laid) deposits, it is sometimes very difficult to make the distinction between intentionally flaked stone (shaped by human hand) or "geofacts", stone flaked by geological force (like tossing and banging against each other in a high energy stream). The latter sometimes can look very convincing. The same goes for tephrafacts (pseudo-artifacts created in a volcanic environment). Unfortunately, SE Asia with it's high energy monsoonal river systems is an ideal environment for the creation of geofacts. It is also an environment where chronologies are sometimes horribly and notoriously screwed up.
So we have to await publication of the details before we are able to say anything serious about this extraordinary claim.
Humans (the genus Homo) *have* experienced, and survived, several polarity reversals in the past: both short terms events as well as major reversals like the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal 0.8 Ma ago. Some of the smaller duration events (like the Mono Lakes, Laschamp and Blake events) happened while Homo sapiens was already around.
In other words, it seems past examples show we really do not have to fear the end of humanity when the earth geomagnetic filed reverses. There is no record of extinctions tied to reversal events.
There in reality is no real consensus whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of H. sapiens or a separate species. Placing it in a separate species, as some do, has more to do with the wish to keep "us" (Homo sapiens s.s.) unique, than that it has a factual background.
In the same line, it is interesting to read the comments here and see how many of them make a distinction between "humans" (i.e., "us") and Neanderthals.
But why would Neanderthals not be humans too? Because they might (or might not!) be a separate species? Well, they are even by most conservative standards still placed in the genus Homo. Which basically means "human". Is a polar bear not a bear while a brown bear is, because they are different species of bear? Of course not: they are both bears. Likewise, anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals are both humans.
It is interesting to see how many people nevertheless insist they are not. That has all to do with our perception of "us" versus "them" and wish for "us" to be "unique". It's a "genocentric" (and xenophobic) attitude.
The same phenomena is reponsible for the ongoing insistence by some that Neanderthals are necessarily cognitively inferior to us, evolutionary necessarily somewhere inbetween us and apes in cognition. This assumption really has no basis.
Looking at the archaeological record (and I should ad here that I am a paleolithic archaeologist by profession - I research Neanderthal material culture), it is clear that Neanderthals were intelligent beings involved in many activities that were similar to those of anatomically modern humans (and well beyond activities performed by extant apes). They did some things in ways we cannot comprehend, but that does not mean they were less developed cognitively: only that we cannot comprehend it with our cognition (or have been hampered in that, because we assume those differences to be due to a lower level of cognition). Those who do argue for that, merely wish to see it this way.
Neanderthals were not merely "apes". And they were not something alike to mentally retarded humans. They were different, yes. But not necessarily cognitively inferior (note: many of the "arguments" to the contrary you'll find in popular textbooks on the matter, are either outdated or factually incorrect, and the result of looking at the evidence in a very biased way. That has again more to do with the wish to keep "us" unique and at the top, the hero in the grand narrative of human evolution).
Even the fact that Neanderthals got extinct and anatomically modern Homo sapiens did not, does not imply that they were cognitively inferior. You try to argue the same for, for example, Tasmanian aborigines (who are now extinct), and you'll rightly be called a racist.
I was talking about whether it is news-worthy, not whether it is research-worthy. And commenting on some of the odd aspects of this /. news item - such as suggesting that this technique for worm-hunting was somehow unusual and geographically restricted while in fact it is a commonly used one, or at best a variation on a theme.
I agree, this hardly seems news-worthy. Using vibration to bring out worms by sticking a pole, shovel or pitchfork in the ground and shaking it is hardly "unusual" either. Fishermen everywhere on the world have used this method for ages (I've always been told as a kid that the vibrations make the worm think it rains).
Maybe it is unusual only for city-dwelling academics...
Some bird species use the technique too by the way, they trample the ground to bring worms up.
It are estimates from the objects observed brightness. The nominal value (3 meter) is usually based on an assumed albedo of 0.15. Depending on the composition, the true albedo can range between 0.03 (very dark carbonaceous) and 0.22.
With H=30.4 for 2008 TC3 (MPEC 2008-T74), the estimated size range from these albedoes is from 2 to 8 meter, with best estimate 3 meter.
Iron is both denser and darker than the far more common stony meteor
You are wrong there. M-class (iron) and S-class (silicious) objects have similar albedoes: 0.10 - 0.18 resp. 0.10 - 0.22. Carbonaceous objects have significantly lower albedoes (0.03 - 0.09) but are also structurally very weak and highly likely to disintegrate.
The Brunhes-Matuyama reversal at 780000 yrs ago was a major reversal, yes: but within the Brunhes epoch, after 780,000 yrs ago, there were several smaller, i.e. short-lasting, reversals.
...so nothing new here for me really. I had this entry in the webstats of my weblog at the time of the USA 193 spy satellite shootdown: http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2008/03/interesting-visitor.html
It is interesting how both source and the discussion here is almost entirely about the USA versus Russia. The fact that Europe is also involved, and now actually has it's own (unmanned, but there is talk about a manned version) space vehicle to reach the ISS (the ATV) independent of either Russian Soyuz/Progress or American Shuttle flights, is completely ignored. Europeans will also continue to fly aboard Russian Soyuz flights (certainly now Kourou is ready to launch Soyuz rockets).
This already is available. Just use a free tracking software program like Orbitron (www.stoff.pl) and download a timely version of the element set of classified satellites here: http://www.io.com/~mmccants/tles/index.html And rest assured that the Russians, Chinese, etc., don't need this element set because they already have it from their own tracking networks.
Concerning all these comments about lawsuits, consider this: the company is Dutch based, not US, and the Netherlands does not have the lawsuit culture of the US at all.... So quite probably this is just what it appears to be: a polite inquiry whether they can buy the domain name, for business reasons. No darker motives. The text being short? That's how we Dutch communicate. We tend to be direct.
You wish. There are over 140 US objects tracked by us amateur satellite trackers which are classified - i.e. they officially do not exist and the only public data on their orbits comes from us amateur trackers. Not NASA, the DoD or any other US government agency.
Oops: of course meant to say: "one of the few where downloading music files is not illegal"
We basically have this system in my country, the Netherlands. There is a small fee on every blank CD you purchase here, which is meant to cover royalties for music (whether the CD is used or not to burn music on it...). Our country is one of the few where downloading music files is illegal (it is to upload music files though).