A couple of things worth noting:

1. The writer of the article is trying to promote his Dan Brown-esque book, and leading with a forced comparison between an archaeological discovery of incalculable importance and a christian myth helps him promote his book. This certainly isn't the first time a journalist has pressed an archaeologist for a quote that can be bent to serve an inaccurate lead. Even the NYT has done this, forcing renowned archaeologists to hedgingly acknowledge that a site "could possibly, *in theory* be that of ---- fill in the blank: Atlantis, Homer's Troy, etc. when that really isn't a scholarly claim.

2. Some of you might find Adrienne Mayor's book, "The First Fossil Hunters" interesting. It proves that myths can - at least sometimes - take root in historical events without the myths themselves being true. In the book, Mayor shows that the greco-romans made accidental archaeological excavations of dinosaur remains and the best way they could explain the discoveries were through the myths of Griffins, giants, etc.

So cool!

Clearly neither The Sun or the BBC bothered to do any real research into Plato's description. Atlantis is supposed to be a series of hierarchical, terraced spheres, so a rectangular grid is completely at odds with the ancient description.

It reminds me of the clock from "Beauty and the Beast"!

I agree with xTivo - keep the upcoming queue but don't link it to the main page. I didn't realize how it all worked until reading these posts, but if you have to vote on something in the UQ tab to get it to the main page that just seems repetitive - why read the item twice?

Wow, interesting comments. I'm a life-long atheist and my first reaction was that the nurse didn't mean any harm and her offer should just be taken in the spirit of general well wishes. But Con and some of the other posters really got me thinking. Based on what was in the article the nurse did make assumptions about the religiosity of her patient, but for all we know there was a cross hanging in the room. There may be relevant details not in that article.

However, *if* that's really all the nurse said then I personally wouldn't be offended. Maybe a bit annoyed depending on the context, but not really offended. I do understand how someone could be though. What if the patient was Buddhist or Muslim and that started a request that the nurse not pray to a Christian god, which offended the nurse and effected the patient's care? The nurse is there as a (scientific) medical practitioner, not a nun. She should have prayed silently for her patient in her off-time and not even brought it up unless the patient did first. That is the most neutral and professional course of action, and the one she had been repeatedly advised to follow by her superiors.

As for the prayer card, that seems more like religious solicitation and, IMO, indisputably crosses the line. It also shows the nurse's repeated attempts to bring her religion into the workplace, which - as Con pointed out - makes me wonder if the standard of care would drop for those who react negatively to her offers of faith.

She should get a formal suspension with the understanding that if it happens again she's fired without question. If she had just followed her employer's rules to not broach the subject of religion unless the patient did then all would have been fine.

This is a wonderful idea. Some of you are really missing the point and making huge leaps in logic to call it socialism. Anyone who has taken out a loan - for college, a house, etc, - knows that you get approved for that loan based on the worthiness of the investment and repayment *and that the use of funds are restricted exclusively to the purpose of the loan.* You can't get a loan to fix the foundation of your house and use the money for a trip to Europe instead. It's the same premise here. If the government is using tax payer funds to bail out Wall Street then the funds should go *only* to the intended purpose: making the companies solvent so that the national economy can rebound. NOT rewarding employees with disproportionate bonuses in a year that resulted in large-scale bankruptcy and a downward spiral for the entire nations economy.

I've never worked anyplace where the bonuses are large in a year that the company has underperformed - Wall Street should be no exception. Taking federal funds to fix their mistakes should come with certain criteria for how those funds are put to use - that's what any one of us would be subject to when getting a loan and Wall Street shouldn't be above the same restrictions.

So adorable! Now *I* need a nap!