Slashdot Mirror


A New Species Of Giant Ape?

jd writes "The New Scientist, The Age (an Australian newspaper), Daily Telegraph (a British newspaper), BBC, and the Discovery Channel are talking excitedly about a strange primate, found in the Congo. Locals say it is notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions. Optimists hope that it is a new species, maybe related to the gorilla. Pessimists claim it's an overgrown chimpanzee. In either case, primates aren't discovered every day, making this a rare find indeed."

398 comments

  1. Pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've already discovered a couple of those in my local pub.

    1. Re:Pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already saw it on television atleast two times. Once on Firday (Oct 1st) and another time on Oct 8th (Friday). You can see it on this wednesday (Oct 13th) too. Got to tell you...It's was very exciting....

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

      looks like they are regrouping for a sequel of congo...

  2. In other news . . . by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . Peter Jackson began production on his remake of king Kong in the Congo last week . . .

    1. Re:In other news . . . by Kong99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whew... so it's just Andy Serkis running around in a monkey suit. Wait, that's a scary situation in and of itself!!

  3. It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Developers, developers, developers!"

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1, Funny

      Isn't it also renowned for attacking penguins?

    2. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by wobblie · · Score: 0

      No that gorilla isn't even close, that one's more like 5'3" and 324 pounds, with overactive sweat glands(believed to play a part in communication) ...

    3. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by tpgp · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Developers, developers, developers!"

      if you don't know what he's talking about

      --
      My pics.
    4. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That particular ape is known for something that rhymes with "lion" but it's not what it kills...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      "M'lord, that was "Sire Stevie B." chomping the bit on the stage....Damn near demolished the stage to wood-rot, almost got his accident insurance cancelled, and required 2 hectares of fine-grained sand and kitty litter to soak up that stage."

      Devel-apers, devel-apers, devel-apers... ahem...

      (Aren't chu-glad-- you use Dial!?
      Aren't chu-glaaaad-- you use Dial!?
      Aren't chu-glad?
      Aren't chu-glad?
      You yoooz-diaaal!
      Ahh-hren't chuuu GLAD?!

      refrain...)

      (YIKES! Too goddam much TV in the 70's, hehehe...)

      Umm, back to the present...replacing blamer, umm, Ballmer with Linus, but with suave style and candor.

      Leenox-aper, leenox-aper, leenox-apers...
      Linux-opers, Linux-opers, Linux-opers... (grabs a glass o' water... resumes:

      Linux-opers, Linux-opers, Linux-opers... )

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    6. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, you may be dancing on the edge of patent and/or trademark infringement.

    7. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by bludger · · Score: 1

      If I were that rich, I would do the same.

    8. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ay caramba!

      That is the lamest thing I will ever see.

  4. Where are the stone paddles? by LiquidRaptor · · Score: 2

    Up way to late and I read that as found giant gorillas killing adults...
    I think I've read congo a few to many times.

  5. Didn't we discuss this last year? by joeykiller · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't this story reported -- and discussed here -- in august last year as well?

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08 /1 0/0014206&tid=134&tid=14

    (Of course, I didn't RTFA)

    1. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by metlin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but while the previous article seemed uncertain of the discovery, these seem fairly conclusive.

      Plus, they have taken pictures of them while earlier on they were mostly speculative. Not to mention first hand physiological details.

      Not really a repeat - more of a follow up, IMHO.

    2. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by pe1rxq · · Score: 3, Informative

      Incomplete followups to be precise....
      DNA test have proven it to be chimps. Just large ones. But that probably wasn't exiting enought for the mainstream press.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    3. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by indigeek · · Score: 1

      The pictures on BBC and Discovery are of Gorillas, not this new ape. Read the caption on the Beeb picture

    4. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by hencethus · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of all the hype about the humanzee that was on the Discovery Channel a few months ago. It was just a chimpanzee with some odd behavioral characteristics. *yawn*

    5. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a source to share for that, please?

    6. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by underblog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The latsest new scientist's article, only available online to subscribers, says that it's just mitochondrial DNA which has been analysed, although this does show the ape to be genetically indistinguishable from the local chimp subspecies.

      This doesn't really explain their large size (not just larger than the average chimp, but larger than the largest previously known chimp), their unusual skull shape and behavioural differences.

      Possible explanations for these include variations in the Y chromosome (although Shelly Williams says she has seen large females too) or simple genetic drift in other parts of the genome. The fact that mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the mother leaves open the possibility that the apes are descended from the offspring of male gorilla and female chimp pairings.

    7. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
      A 6.5 foot chimp isn't just large, it's gigantic!

      = 9J =

    8. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

      Mitochondrial DNA tests have proven that it is related to chimps, however mitochondrial DNA is passed only through the female line - these animals may have male gorilla ancestors.

  6. Zinj by interactive_civilian · · Score: 5, Funny
    Hrmm...is the new species a grey gorilla that carries two stone paddles which it uses to crush its victims skulls? Is it perhaps located near a lost city, named Zinj, that is famous for its boron coated diamonds which have rather useful electrical properties?

    If the answers to these questions are yes, then we need to get a gorilla that understands sign language ASAP.

    Do I read to much?* At least I never saw the movie.

    *well, not TFA, apparently. ;-)

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Zinj by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Heh, I thought exactly the same thing, having just finished reading the book again the other night.

    2. Re:Zinj by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      I rather found the book and later the movie quite bad. :( .. To be sure of my observations, I have seen the movie twice. *The _pain_..*

      --
      Store with salt
    3. Re:Zinj by wolfpaws · · Score: 1

      My favorite cheesy quote from the laser wielding Laura Linney just before she blasts the apes:

      "Put them on the endangered species list!"

  7. Incredible but.... by N+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wonderful discovery but, now that we've found them, one wonders how long it'll be before we somehow manage to wipe the species out :(

    1. Re:Incredible but.... by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worse, how many species out there are being wiped out that we know/knew nothing about?

      There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.

      I wonder how many such species would be out there in the jungles of Amazon - we spend so much money on war and destruction, if only we'd spend it on preserving some of our planet's natural heritage we'd be helping ourselves and generations to come.

      Ah, that won't come to pass as long as greedy fools continue to rule us.

    2. Re:Incredible but.... by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      Remember, the people of today are only concerned about today. They don't care about how it might be for our ancestors and other living things to exist on this rock decades from now. It is so sad how it is a ME world now!

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    3. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Species going extinct is a part of the _natural_ evolution of this planet - and has always been long before man. Man is also part of this planet's natural evolution, which makes Man's actions _natural_.

      It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).

    4. Re:Incredible but.... by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      I was going to say something similar. We actually have the chance of doing more damage by repopulating some of these endangered species.

    5. Re:Incredible but.... by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).

      Agreed. But when you cut down thousands of acres of forest a day and forcefully kill the plant, please do not tell me that it is unnatural.

      It is unnatural to interfere with the way Nature works, the argument that Man's actions are natural does not simply hold true because our actions are sentient and conscious, and is deviant from nature's course of mere survival - we do not just try to survive, we explicitly go out there and destroy. We cause harm knowing well the consequences.

      By your argument, if we wiped out almost every other living thing on this planet eventually, it does not matter? Because it's "natural" in a conjured up way?

      Natural selection for survival is onething, for destructive purposes is another.

    6. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm no - we definitely "try to survive".

      All actions cause harm, to someone. Being sentient means we have a choice, other animals don't. It doesn't change the fact that whatever Man does is still natural, although I agree we shouldn't lay waste when it's not necessary.

      Claiming that we should try to save each and every species going extinct is however very unnatural.

    7. Re:Incredible but.... by johannesg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      By your argumentation, nothing we do can be called unnatural. That makes the distinction between natural and unnatural useless.

      I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature. When our actions disturb the natural order, that is unnatural. The natural order is for those great apes to live in a forest somewhere in Afrika. If they are killed by a disease or predator, that's natural and I can accept it. But wiping them out to satisfy our never-ending hunger for more land and more resources, or worse, for superstitious beliefs, is unnatural and wrong.

    8. Re:Incredible but.... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the predator know that the prey must die for it to eat?

      Your view can only come from the religious ultra-right that believes that humans are something other than animal.

      We are animals, plain and simple. We are just smart animals.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:Incredible but.... by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Remember, the people of today are only concerned about today

      Well, not all people of today, obviously. Some are concerned but their numbers pale into insignificance when compared to, say, SUV drivers.

      > It is so sad how it is a ME world now!

      It's always been that way. It's just that until the industrial revolution we could only do a negligible amount of damage. If the world leaders so desired, all life on the plant could be wiped out by next weekend. Let's just be grateful we have such wise leaders. An idiot in the White House, or 10 Downing Street, for example, could cause a lot of damage if their sought only to improve things in the very short term.

    10. Re:Incredible but.... by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm no - we definitely "try to survive".

      I'm sure that brand new McDonald toy manufactured out of a toy factory that polluted the environment is absolutely essential to your survival. Man, you'd die without it, wouldn't it? Guess what? There *are* several species that *do* die because of it.

      Claiming that we should try to save each and every species going extinct is however very unnatural.

      Mmmm, nowhere in my post did I mention that.

      However, blatantly causing the extinction of so many species is preventable, and steps should be taken to prevent that, that's all.

    11. Re:Incredible but.... by metlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doesn't the predator know that the prey must die for it to eat?

      Eating is survival, pleasure is not.

      Going by your argument, if it is okay for me to kill thousands of animals because I want my next coolest toy, it's alright for someone to parttake in genocide. Hey, it's natural isn't it?

    12. Re:Incredible but.... by cdemon6 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, better get some DNA now - then we can "rebuild" them in a few years...

    13. Re:Incredible but.... by Proc6 · · Score: 0

      Amen. I see no evidence that any other species makes decisions based on long-term goals or the well being of other species. Im sure if any other species had the means and opportunity to extend themselves to every part of the earth even if it meant the destuction of other creatures they would.

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    14. Re:Incredible but.... by GigsVT · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be unnatural for you to do so.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    15. Re:Incredible but.... by metlin · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. But I do not know enough about biology to comment on that, but it just seems unlikely that self-defeatist (species-wise) behaviour of that kind would be something nature would favour.

    16. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, that McD toy is part of our survival. It's part of our economy, and that is what makes us grow population wise - which is exactly what survival means for most species.

      Look at the bigger picture.

    17. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take the matter into your own hands. You can start by killing yourself. Oh..., you want to be here too but complain about the resources people need to live. You want to be here and live comfortably but do not like the idea that others are? Do you drive a car and live in a wood house? Where did those materials come from? You feel no one else should live off of the land but you should? You have a microwave in your house? What are you not using a solar concentrator to heat your food. You take a bath every day? Why? That is a waste of fresh water and energy to heat the water. Have A/C or heat in your house? Those take huge amounts of energy to maintain and run but you feel others should get rid of them..

      Nice to say you want everyone to wise up while you sit there and do the same things everyone else does. Until you are walking to work wearing nothing but clothes you've made yourself from left over animal parts and hides, shut the fuck up.

    18. Re:Incredible but.... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But when you cut down thousands of acres of forest a day and forcefully kill the plant, please do not tell me that it is unnatural.

      To each team of loggers, they are only cutting down a few hundred trees in the rain forest each week. And since other people want to buy the logs, this is a good way for them to make money in order to feed and cloth their families. No president is going to be able to say "stop feeding your families" to these guys and remain popular.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    19. Re:Incredible but.... by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1, Interesting



      You must be a city person.

      Ever seen what a fox, or weasel, or even a racoon, will do in a hen house? They will all kill every single chicken in the coop, then only eat the best parts from one or two. If you don't clean the mess up, they might return for one or two nights to partially eat from other carcasses, but they leave the vast majority to spoil and rot. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    20. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      :)

      We don't save each and every species.

    21. Re:Incredible but.... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      If the world leaders so desired, all life on the plant could be wiped out by next weekend.

      I very much doubt that. In fact, I very much doubt they could eradicate very single human being by that time, although they could certainly set the events in motion that would lead to human extinction.

      But all life on the planet in one weekend? No.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    22. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What if we kill them because they are a threat to us, or perhaps because they taste good. Isn't that survival? Isn't that "natural"?

    23. Re:Incredible but.... by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      Virus.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    24. Re:Incredible but.... by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1
      Agreed. But when you cut down thousands of acres of forest a day and forcefully kill the plant, please do not tell me that it is unnatural.


      OK, I won't tell you it is unnatural.

      Besides, I'm too busy gathering together protesters. We're going to make signs and go down the the beaver pond and protest the destruction of the trees and alterations of the wetlands.
      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    25. Re:Incredible but.... by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Blame it on capitalism... you can't have an environmentally sound system without a strong regulation that would deny the natural resources to the people who are competitively abusing them to the last drop. (p.s. I said capitalism, NOT democracy!)

    26. Re:Incredible but.... by Cybrr · · Score: 1
      genocide
      n.
      The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.


      You're merely speaking of saving a pile of apples.
      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    27. Re:Incredible but.... by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      Why would they? Are they drones?

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    28. Re:Incredible but.... by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      So they don't want to destroy things, they only want to feed their family.

      They don't know of a better way to do it.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    29. Re:Incredible but.... by krunk7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that we are in the middle of one of the largest mass extinctions in the history of our world? Rivalled only by that of the Permian?

      I mean really, how much of a cop out is it to blow it off as "man is part of nature, so this is natural"? You mine as well tack on ". . .so I'm going to get mine." on the end of it.

      Even given that this is a natural event, there is one other HUGE difference. The others were absolutely, without a doubt, unequivacally unpreventable. Whereas the current is just as extremely preventable. Furthermore, a meteor cannot "decide" to stop wiping life from the face of the earth, be WE CAN.

      Ok, let me spell it out for you: We have a choice This directly means that: We are responsible.

      If we were to use your reasoning, every:
      Every man is part of nature, therefore what he does is part of the natural state. Man is not responsible for the natural state. Consequently, no man is responsible for his actions destructive or otherwise.

      Now go ahead and back pedal. "That's not what I'm saying. . .Of course, we're responsible, but. . ." blah blah blah.

      *SMACK* Bad, faulty logic, bad!!

    30. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...satisfy our never-ending hunger for more land and more resources...

      At the rate that humans are multiplying (naturally) we need more and more land. People already lives hundreds of stories up in big cities, think if we expanded all horizontally instead of vertically, there would be no rain forests left.

    31. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      Why should I back pedal? I fully consider the Earth to be a resource exploitable by the species that "won" evolution (at least currently). That is what survival of the fittest leads to - no matter which species is the fittest. It's natural.

      That said, I don't see a point in doing _unnecessary_ things - but there are very few of those.

    32. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy there, Pol Pot.

    33. Re:Incredible but.... by aiabx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, maybe it is natural. But that doesn't mean it isn't short sighted and self-destructive, in the same way that unchecked animals will eat everything in their environment and drive themselves into starvation. The difference is that we can see the ramifications of our actions, and choose a different course of action- one that will make the human population sustainable over the long term.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    34. Re:Incredible but.... by orasio · · Score: 1

      Population wise, it is poverty what makes us grow.
      Eating shit, but reproducing nevertheless.

      People who have enough money to get an education don't have seven children.

      I believe we don't have the power to kill everything that lives. Of course, we have the power to destroy our ecosystem, and ourselves, but earth is much bigger than that. Seeing the big picture, yes, we are a part of nature, and nature is much bigger than us, and we can't fight nature. The only survival we should care about is ours. Destroying species is not bad because of ethics issues. It's bad because every species is potentially benefitial to our survival, in the long run. I don't believe that shit about the immoralit of destroying our ecosystem. We are the superior beings in this place, and we can do as we wish. Destroying our home would be dumb, but the real reason to protect it is our survival, noone elses.

    35. Re:Incredible but.... by clacke · · Score: 1

      By your argumentation, nothing we do can be called unnatural. That makes the distinction between natural and unnatural useless.


      Indeed. Wasn't that the poster's point?
    36. Re:Incredible but.... by madstork2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I disagree with your comment: I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.

      Our morality may set us apart, but morality is subjective, and ultimately arbitrary. And thus irrelevent in overall scheme of the universe.

      In the end the earth will be a barren wasteland one-way or another. Nature WILL ultimately destroy the planet.

      So thinking along the natural vs. unnatural argument is moot. If we believed that strictly if there are people around when the sun expands or a giant astroid hits should those people try to stop Nature if they have the technology to?

      I bet if in the several billion years down the road people are around, and have the technology to add nuclear feul to a star, or move a planets orbit or whatever other unimaginable technology to save the day they would try and do it to save whats left of the "homeland".

      Or nature could decide to do us in sooner, with a giant asteroid. Its pretty hypocritical in my opinion to plan to save the planet from the astroid, while at teh same time to condemning people from using land if it is needed.

      If the rain forest is going to be oblierated anyway why bother? It boils down to darwin and survival of the fittest.

      Plants and animals develop ways to defend themselves against us. Some do it very successfully (i.e. pesticide resistent bugs, drugs that are ineffective because the bateria / virus has evolved). In otherwords nature, DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US, one way or the other.
      In a sense we are at war with nature, and will always be at war because there will ALWAYS be natural threats that could wipe out our species.


      But lets get back to the morility issue. Why is it morally wrong to wipe out unknown species or even unimportant known ones; while at the same time it is fine to wipe out a disease like small pox?


      Life is life, it does not matter the scale. We'll be pretty darn excited if we confirm a true Martian virus, wouldn't we? It would definately be "morally" wrong to kill our hypothetical Martian virus wouldn't it? Unless of course, it is a threat to us. then we'd all have Mars disinfectant spray sitting around.


      It boils down to we will always look out for the best interest of our species. We may try to sugar coat it with morals and ethics, but the fact remians we are at the top of the food chain, and will try ot stay there.


      If tearing down rain forest and killing ofother species is in the best interest of people then do it.


      I personally DO NOT think it is; because, unlike most other species, we have the capacity to learn and expand our knowledge. We depend on knowledge to survive. Destroying things we do not fully understand is counter-productive.


      Our intelligence also confuses us; because it makes us think we have extra "responsibilities" because of arbitrary morals, and ethics.


      WRONG! Our morals and ethics are important because they help us function as a society (sometimes), but they may end up to be our downfall, since those same morals and ethics have diversified to the point where we have large populations of people with opposed morals and ethics, trying to condemn the other side.


      In some ways I think morals and ethics is Nature using our intelligence against us.


      So what we need to do is NOT worry about every little species out there, and should start focusing on preserving and prolonging our own species.

      Is the environment important to people? Yes, so we need to take care of it. Is worrying about global warming important? Yes, so we need to keep an eye on it? Is a new species of primates important to us? Yes, they have value to our species.

      So to complete the argument, humans number one survival skill is our intelligence. In order for us to survive we ne

    37. Re:Incredible but.... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Depends on how they taste with honey-mustard or perhaps a barbacue dipping sauce, b/c chickens and cows are endangered species.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    38. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why should I back pedal? ...


      I think he meant to check one of your previous comments.
    39. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonderful discovery but, now that we've found them, one wonders how long it'll be before we somehow manage to wipe the species out :(

      This is why I need one (or 2) for my personal collection!!!

    40. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      By your argument, if we wiped out almost every other living thing on this planet eventually, it does not matter? Because it's "natural" in a conjured up way?

      I think you are confusing non-emotional definition of "natural" with its current somewhat alien usage of being something good and proper. Natural has no moral/ethical meaning in itself; it's orthogonal to morality.

      I mean, there are things that from biological perspective make sense, and are, well, natural; like males killing offsprings of other males (infanticide). That's PERFEECTLY natural, and yes, for human perspective it's also completely wrong as well as immoral (for most if not all people). Same goes for many other crimes; not to mention sexual activities.

    41. Re:Incredible but.... by blugu64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...They don't care about how it might be for our ancestors...

      Donno about yours, but my ancestors are all pretty much dead, don't get me wrong they should rest in peace, but I'm not all that concerned about what they think about stuff ;)

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    42. Re:Incredible but.... by Java+Ape · · Score: 1
      However, when we use our supposedly superior intelligence to destroy the land, alter the climate and intentionally destroy thousands of species, it's hardly business as usual. By your reasoning, engineered virusus and nuclear fallout are natural phenomena.

      However, we may be outsmarting ourselves. We've reproduced ourselves into an effective mega-community. If you study "natural" population management, the usual outcome of this is the collapse of the whole population from the next little problem to come along.
      For example, bioligists in the 60's found that Idaho and Western Montana had the forage to support much larger deer populations than were living on the land. A few changes to the hunting laws and BAM, populations doubled, then tripled. Then a brain parasite outbreak occured. These were fairly common, and occasionally decimated a small, isolated herd. However, this time the deer's behavior had altered, and instead of wintering in groups of 10-20, they had formed a mega-herd, which allowd the parasite to kill the majority of the population. Very few survived, and the repercussions on the entire ecosystem were felt for decades.

      I suspect that someday either some little country will drop a genetically-engineered virus or something like ebola will adapt to be transmitted in aerosol. Our macro-community will facilitate transmission across the globe (we were amazingly lucky with ebola, twice!). The black plague took out better than 30% of the population of Europe, just think what a bigger, nastier, more virulent bug could do to our far-flung and interconnected society. Viva evolution -- we've far to short a history to count ourselves a succcess story yet. re

    43. Re:Incredible but.... by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      If you look at it on a cosmic/universal scale (I'm assuming there is intelligent life elsewhere), then yes man's actions are normal given our current state of evolution.

      But from the view point of simple natural selection on Earth (the universe excluded) it is not. For the first time in the history of the evolution of the Earth, there is one species which has the knowledge to change its own course of evolution (genetics/gene therapy). Thus we are in a way directly interfering with natural selection. Man has the capability to control nature by manipulating the very thing which codes for its diversity, that is DNA/RNA.

      Back when I was at the university, reknowned biologist Stephen Jay Gould gave a talk regarding natural selection and history. During the question and answer session a bright student asked him the very same question ..are we not changing our own evolution and the process of natural selection? This seemed to anger him quite a bit. He couldn't even think about it logically/academically and began to try to refute it without any supporting evidence.

    44. Re:Incredible but.... by operagost · · Score: 1
      That's funny - I've heard Christians on both sides of this argument.

      We are more than mere animals and must use our intellect in our spiritual commission as caretakers of the planet

      We are part of the ecosystem, hence nothing we do is unnatural, and we should do what is in the best interest of humanity

      No matter which side they're on, some atheist comes out of the woodwork to deride them.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    45. Re:Incredible but.... by operagost · · Score: 1
      You do realize that we are in the middle of one of the largest mass extinctions in the history of our world? Rivalled only by that of the Permian?
      This raises the question - so what?

      No flaming, please. I'm serious - does the disappearance of another 1,000 barely-variant insect species make a real impact? Many species are not even discovered until they're gone. Yes, insects often do perform a vital function - but does each one of those 1,000 insect species (and of course, one or two that are actually higher forms like fish or birds) perform a unique function that will destroy the ecosystem if eliminated?

      If your answer is no, then ask yourself who radical conservationism benefits except the radical conservationist himself.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    46. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      Oh I fully agree. HIV might be just that virus you're looking for btw - check up on the number of infected (and the increasion rate) in the former Soviet block region and Africa.

      The human race still cannot cure the common cold - let alone any other virus-caused infection really.

    47. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      How about: "The whole point of natural selection is to through trial and error breed the super race that stands above it"

      Why not?

      We changed our own evolution a long time ago.

    48. Re:Incredible but.... by Amiasian · · Score: 1

      Isn't Nature the category that includes all events that occur without conscious awareness?

      Hence:
      Instinct.

      Everything else false under the artificial, designed, or intentional category.

      Hence:
      Awareness.

    49. Re:Incredible but.... by revery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By your argumentation, nothing we do can be called unnatural. That makes the distinction between natural and unnatural useless.

      Well then, please tell me, by your argument, who or what is the arbiter of that distinction?

      I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.

      Heh. Do you mind defining morality? And just out of curiosity, how does something that supposedly arose
      from natural development (such as our "morality") become separated from from nature?

      --
      People want to know. People are asking.

    50. Re:Incredible but.... by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      Worse, how many species out there are being wiped out that we know/knew nothing about?
      I heard it's a lot, but they're mostly goddam bugs and stuff. Good riddance I say.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    51. Re:Incredible but.... by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      HIV might be just that virus you're looking for btw check up on the number of infected (and the increasion rate) in the former Soviet block region and Africa.
      It's still pretty easy to avoid catching it.
      The human race still cannot cure the common cold
      The common cold is rarely fatal, though.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    52. Re:Incredible but.... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      It's also unnatural to use _ when perfectly valid markups are available.

      Or did you mean something else? Are "_natural_" and "_unnatural_" actually completely different from "natural" and "unnatural?"

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are. But what could they mean? I'll attempt to derive it from context. Got it!

      _natural_: having a tendency to kill off anything that moves, usually with large weapons
      _unnatural_: wanting unusual species to stay alive

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    53. Re:Incredible but.... by banausikos · · Score: 1

      "If they are killed by a disease or predator, that's natural and I can accept it."

      We are predators.

    54. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      For now, yes.

    55. Re:Incredible but.... by noodler · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that a den full of chickens is something completely unnatural to the fox.
      Dens do not grow in nature, they are human inventions.
      Evolution never had the chance to acomodate the foxes genes for a den full of chickens (that have no way to escape).

      Hence it's 'bad' behaviour.
      But nature is nice that way.
      Would this have been a natural situation then the fox would have thrown away his dinner for the comming weeks/months and would have a much slimmer chance of survival.

      The fox that doesnt kill them off will have a meal for later and will have a greater chance of surviving.

    56. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      _underline_, *bold* and /italics/ were how you did those ~20 years or so when wordprocessing. I guess it's a habit hard to break.

      2 of them still work in MS Word I believe, I think OOo as well.

    57. Re:Incredible but.... by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Our morality may set us apart, but morality is subjective...

      Or at least there appears to be a subjective component to how it cashes out into different cultures.

      ...and ultimately arbitrary.

      This, on the other hand, flys in the face of the evidence. It's an interesting article of faith for many, but it's not the kind of belief that can be considered rational.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    58. Re:Incredible but.... by Sheepdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.

      (I'm killing my karma, but I don't post to /. just so I can moderate or whatever karma gives you, so I don't mind)

      It's amazing how that no matter how many people continually debunk junk science, it is still accepted as fact that we are destroying our planet. Our effects are minimal compared to what other bodies, such as the sun, the moon, and the earth itself, are doing to the planet. Even worse, the people that blindly believe the global warmning theocracy in the US don't know anything about the urban heat island effect, climatology, or global warmning in general.

      A climatologist I talked to once likened it to technical support. He said, "You ever had someone come up to you, start talking about something you know, start telling you about something related that's 'new' you heard about, and describing it all horribly wrong? It's like that."

      Several instances immediately came to mind over the course of helping people with technical issues. No offense, but the same people telling me they use AOL because of their new "anti-hacker software puts up one of those hardware firewalls made by Dell" are the same people who claim that we are having massive hurricanes because of global warming. They say both with a straight face and work in retail, marketing, or accounting and I'm supposed to take these people's word on the environment?

      Heaven forbid if you ever call them on it, cause hell, you don't know any more than they do. Even though your freaking job revolves around it. Or, in the case of the environment, you've at least *looked* at the points that the opposing side raises. I used to care about the environment till I started looking into it. Now I realize what a freaking waste of time it is to hear people debate about it. Which is why I only write about it once a year. And this is that time of the year. :)

      I guess my point is: I don't tell you how to do your job, I don't make assumptions about how Enron is responsible for all these new accounting jobs/regulations/rules. I don't repeat verbatim what I hear in the news, nor do I talk as fact what I "perceive". I know my field, you know yours. Neither of us knows climatology, so you'll have to excuse me if I have to say that your assumptions remind me a tad bit of someone who subscribes to a religion instead of someone who actually knows and cares about the subject, rather than just using it as a sounding board for their latest rant.

    59. Re:Incredible but.... by neurojab · · Score: 1

      >Maybe. The point is we don't know so until we determine there value to us they should be preserved.

      I agree that humans have come out on top of the food chain, and do have the power to alter our environment, and it's not necissarily amoral to do so. However, I do take issue with your assertion that we should stop worrying about preserving every species.

      The fact is that species come and go over the course of our planet's evolution. It's also a fact that as humans assert themselves as the master species, they have been causing species to become extinct at a much larger rate than new species arise. This results in less bio-diversity on the planet as a whole. I would argue that the bio-diversity itself is a huge value, because it makes the global ecosystem more resilient. We cannot survive outside of our ecosystem (on a large scale), and WHEN a cataclysmic failure of our ecosystem occurs , we would likely not be able to fix it. In such a scenario, we would become extinct.

      Bio-diversity is beneficial because it reduces the odds that a cataclysmic failure will occur, and increases the odds that the ecosystem will recover. Therefore we must preserve other species in order to preserve ourselves. QED.

    60. Re:Incredible but.... by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      You already know that I meant descendents.

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    61. Re:Incredible but.... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).

      First you say our actions are natural, now you say their unnatural. Make up your mind, you damn flip flopper.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    62. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass - let's run with your "they taste good". If they taste so good, why not PRESERVE some of them as a breeding population? If we exterminated all the cows in the world, would we fondly think back about how great those hamburgers tasted?

    63. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do find our ability to *reflect* sort of _unnatural_, too. We can both put a gazillion tons of concrete in places where larches used to sing and moose fuck, but we can also *reflect* on this and ponder: may it be somewhat _unnatural_ what we are doing to nature? Or ought we just donkeypunch Mother Nature and get it over with?

      The lack of distinction between %artificial% and natural is also sort of @puzzling@ to me, since }art{ is, by definition since the time of the Greeks, what is produced by *men* -- and ?nature? is that which gives birth to it all.

      Basically, shit that happens by itself is nature, and shit that is brought forth through reflecting intellect is art. By trying to remove this difference, artificial as it may seem, you are also taking away that moment of choice that occurs within you. I cannot speak for you, but I have a sense that I ordinate the movements of my body and the speech I produce, and so to me, my will appears free.

      Therefore, assuming by a certain razor that other men have such a feeling, I assume mankind is different in kind than say, rock or fish, also in immeasurable ways (who can measure will with a ruler or a clock?), such as the faculties which inform our minds and enable our exercise of choice.

      Therefore, I find it _unnatural_ to presume any person's choice as part of evolution, as evolution happens at birth and death, and choice happens between. I seem to have myriad ways of exercising choice, Nature seems to have but one.

      I guess the point of my muddled answer to your muddled argument: If Man's actions are natural, and Man decides to keep species alive throughout catastrophies and environmental disasters, how can this then be unnatural?

      Or is it, perchance, only your own grand mind -- and those that resonate with it -- that exercise _natural_ choices, and my pea-brain and its society of confounded idjots that exercise _unnatural_ such?

      Or should I go to bed and try to sleep the coffee off while debating internally whether intent also resides in natural evolution and why slapping a label onto something and changing its definition along the way is such a good way to seem right? Especially when you present two correct statements that one is compelled to agree with, and then slap on a non sequitur in the spot of honor that noone inspects for correctness, by presumption accepting the assumed pattern of correctness. ...eh...I'll shut up now.

    64. Re:Incredible but.... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.

      We aren't the only animals with a moral sense. Birds, other primates, basically any social animal knows that certain behaviors mean you get kicked out and/or beat down.

      Morality alone does not separate us from nature; animals do morality. Nor does language or tool use, nor agriculture. Animals do those things, though on a smaller scale. Maybe religion does, but only if animals don't build mental models of how the unexplainable works, and I'm not so sure they don't.

      A more useful distinction between natural and unnatural, if you are looking for a distinction, is the amount of technology and codified knowledge required to do something.

      The reason is, the "natural order" is not static. Ecosystems rise and ecosystems fall, with the arrival of new species through migration or evolution, and with changes in plant life, geography, and weather.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    65. Re:Incredible but.... by stmfreak · · Score: 1

      Worse, how many species out there are being wiped out that we know/knew nothing about?

      Or how many new species are coming into being at the same time which we ALSO know nothing about??!

      I think I hear a tree falling... or I might if I were in the forest.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
    66. Re:Incredible but.... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of species have died out in the past, and more will in the future. Fortunately, new species arise and adapt as well. It's all part of the natural course of things.

      If we should ever get off our rears and start colonising the oceans, we're going to be forced to exterminate most of the large life therein, given that it's so deadly. It's not much different from the aboriginal Americans hunting mammoths, camels, horses and everything else they could to extinction. Hopefully we'll be a bit smarter about it, and maybe we'll figure out a way to keep some of the species in preserves of some sort.

    67. Re:Incredible but.... by krunk7 · · Score: 1
      Actually it's "survival of the fit".
      And whether something is natural or not has nothing to do with morality. After all, as I said before. I am a part of nature, if I kill something (by your reasoning) that is natural and so also justifiable.

      BTW this is the only time in known history that a product of nature has caused such destruction.

      Could you maybe mention a couple of unnecessary things? Would, perhaps, knowingly dumping carcinogens into a communities drinking water qualify? Or maybe raising cattle to be shipped to the West on 1000's of acres that could be used to grow corn to feed the starving people of that country? Probably not, since by your reasoning those kids were just not fit enough.

      Could you explain exactly how the fact that you were born into relative privelege is any indication of your vast evolutionary superiority over the less fortunate?

    68. Re:Incredible but.... by krunk7 · · Score: 1
      1 insect, no. Mass extinction, yes. If you don't understand, pick up an book and educate yourself. . .I'm not being mean, or vindictive, but very sincere. What you just said is the equivalent of someone responding "Who cares if the average global temperature is a couple of degrees warmer...." in response to global warming trends.

      But I'll pander you for a moment: imagine for a brief time that it's not bugs, but fish. A few thousand species of fish dieing off will strain the ocean ecosystem depleting populations of existing fis as well. That means less food which means more people starve. Starving people bad (if you say who cares on this one, we are in a completely different moral domain...good luck to you)

    69. Re:Incredible but.... by dajak · · Score: 1

      Species going extinct is a part of the _natural_ evolution of this planet - and has always been long before man. Man is also part of this planet's natural evolution, which makes Man's actions _natural_.

      It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).


      A changing climate in combination with many land barriers that cannot be crossed by species of plants and animals is going to result in a massive loss of species. Even agricultural use of land may make it uninhabitable, certainly for large species.

      Earth has survived periods of mass extinction before, but large animals will not be back in our lifetime and we will still be there to interfere with the process. They will not be back until we are gone.

      It is in our interest to preserve the current biodiversity and study it. Extinction will result in an impoverishment of nature. Only if we understand what we are doing we want to interfere.

    70. Re:Incredible but.... by bob65 · · Score: 1
      Species going extinct is a part of the _natural_ evolution of this planet - and has always been long before man. Man is also part of this planet's natural evolution, which makes Man's actions _natural_. It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).

      Maybe I'm just dense or something, but while most people seem to have a good grasp of what is natural and unnatural (and can distinguish natural and unnatural things with certainty), I've never seemed to understand the difference between the two. What makes something unnatural or natural? I'm inclined to say everything is natural, but obviously people tell me that's the wrong definition (and obviously so, as why would we have the word if that were the case).

    71. Re:Incredible but.... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Just because something is 'natural' doesn't justify it. Justification on moral/ethical basis is wholly subjective. Your equating of natural selection == good can be by your logic extended to letting the sick and physically/mentally disabled, the ugly, etc. of our own species die off (or at least forcefully sterilize them) to improve the gene pool.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    72. Re:Incredible but.... by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1

      We aren't at war with nature, "war" implies an active threat. Nature is more like an idiot who keeps picking fights with people because he doesn't know any better. When he attacks, you're perfectly justified in restraining him, but this doesn't mean that it's either morally acceptable or a good idea to antagonize or provoke him

    73. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long comment, all I can say, is that nobody better kill off this new monkey species until some brave scientist has mated with one and released the video onto the internet.

    74. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      ... and the reason we stand above natural selection is just because we care for our ill.

    75. Re:Incredible but.... by Prune · · Score: 1

      The expression "standing above natural selection" is nonsensical. Standing above in what way? You are implying a comparison of us vs natural selection along a moral dimension, but natural selection has nothing to do with morality. It is a completely separate domain. If you are comparing in some other dimension, then specify, for I can't think of any in which one could be said to "stand above natural selection", other than some other evolutionary method that could be hypothesized to stand above natural selection in efficiency, or something like that.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    76. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · · Score: 1

      I don't see where you got "moral" from. Actually, I don't see what I wrote that you didn't understand?

    77. Re:Incredible but.... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I have never, ever, met a Christian with that latter point of view.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    78. Re:Incredible but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The difference is that we can see the ramifications of our actions, and choose a different course of action- one that will make the human population sustainable over the long term."

      You didn't catch the story about the latest worm, did you? ;-)

  8. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle... by das_katz_socrates · · Score: 1, Insightful

    imagine that the world isn't so small afterall. I hope that this isn't just some one of a kind oddity but an actual new species, it would give hope to all the cryptozooligists out there that perhaps their favorit mythical beastie is real.

    --
    This sig has no nutritional value...
  9. Are They Sure... by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that it wasn't just George Bush on vacation?

    Bob

    1. Re:Are They Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Bell at the guardian makes better monkeys

      start here

    2. Re:Are They Sure... by bircho · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are lions weapons of mass destruction?

    3. Re:Are They Sure... by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      Only if they form Voltron.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
  10. How to scare king kong by walmass · · Score: 5, Funny

    They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared.
    An ape capable of killing lions ran away after a peek--that must have been one ugly face!

  11. Overlords by balster+neb · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our new hitherto unknown giant congolese ape overlords

    1. Re:Overlords by Jesrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apart from beating a dead horse with and old cliché, your post rises the interesting point of naming this new species or subspecies.

      Hmm, looks like a mix of chimps and gorillas, but bigger... Chimpzilla ?

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:Overlords by richy+freeway · · Score: 0

      Or how about Gimps?

    3. Re:Overlords by displaced80 · · Score: 0

      Chimpzilla... already taken. It's AMD:

      Great Satan of Taperecorders, The: This describes AMD. Some years back, two staffers at The Register were astonished to find the PR flunky calmly switching on a tape recorder as we interviewed an executive at a very expensive restaurant. We started singing and refused to chat properly unless the machine was switched off. It was. AMD is also sometimes called Chimpzilla, after its CEO Jerry Sanders III compared his company to a chimpanzee and Intel to a gorilla.

      c.f. Intel: Chipzilla.

      The Quick Guide to The Register Jargon

      --
      What's the frequency, Kenneth?
    4. Re:Overlords by Gopal.V · · Score: 1
      > Hmm, looks like a mix of chimps and gorillas, but bigger... Chimpzilla

      There is a documented case of a chimpanzee that walked on two legs all the time - Humanzee .

      Was suspected to be a mixture - which raised real ethical and moral questions . But turns out to be a mutated chimp which might be an extinct subspecies ?.

    5. Re:Overlords by spagma · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I don't recall, what did Impossible Creatures call this mix?

      --
      If it won't boot, Fsck it!
    6. Re:Overlords by dronkert · · Score: 1

      Hey! I claim prior art.

    7. Re:Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like later art. One hour and fourty minutes late, to be precise.

  12. I'll wager by Linker3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    He/She/it's already on the US 'Do not fly' list

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  13. Tarzan? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Funny

    King of the Jungle, kills lions with bare hands?

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  14. Let's see some pictures or that movie... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

    ...of these Apes or do we have to fund an expedition to bring back some photographic evidence of these creatures?

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:Let's see some pictures or that movie... by jthayden · · Score: 1

      In the days of photoshop, is photographic evidence really evidence anymore?

  15. Microsoft... by salvorHardin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I believe Ms Williams has stumbled across the breeding/training ground for Microsoft's army of evil monkeys.

  16. whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Interesting
    and IMHO, with the exception of the coloration and the stone paddles, these "new" primates seem to resemble the grey gorillas in Michael Crichton's (sp?) Congo quite well. From the BBC article:
    They stand up to two metres tall, the size of gorillas, and like gorillas, they nest on the ground, not in trees.

    ~snip~

    She describes her encounter with them: "Four suddenly came rushing out of the bush towards me," she told New Scientist.

    "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."

    That is not so different from the behavior of the gorillas in Congo...

    I wonder why they stopped attacking when they saw her...

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by kuiken · · Score: 1, Insightful

      from the Telegraph :
      "We could hear them in the trees, about 20 feet away," she said. "My tracker made a sound of an injured duiker [antelope] and four came rushing through the brush towards me.

      "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."


      Seems like they figured an easy meal saw it wasnt what they expected and went away

      --

      42
    2. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that isn't a sign of intelligence I don't know what is :)

    3. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder why they stopped attacking when they saw her...

      Gorilla-panzee 1: OMG- did you see that thing!?!

      Gorilla-panzee 2: yeah! what the hell was it?

      Gorilla-panzee 1: I dunno, but it didn't have a snout and had like almost no fur except for its head.

      Gorilla-panzee 2: yeah, I swear I was gonna barf if I had to look at it longer

      Gorilla-panzee 1: you don't think it was a human do you? like from those stories we heard as kids?

      Gorilla-panzee 2: don't be stupid, humans are made up just like the Yeti and Bigfoot are.

    4. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Arker · · Score: 2, Informative

      and IMHO, with the exception of the coloration and the stone paddles, these "new" primates seem to resemble the grey gorillas in Michael Crichton's (sp?) Congo quite well

      Hardly surprising - his book was inspired by the same tales that brought researchers to the same area, looking for the same creatures.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by lee7guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, the BBC article removed the quote from it's context.

      From Daily Telegraph:


      "We could hear them in the trees, about 20 feet away," she said. "My tracker made a sound of an injured duiker [antelope] and four came rushing through the brush towards me.

      "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."


      The apes thought they were going after a wounded antelope, when they realized they had been tricked, they ran away.

      Guess BBC found it more "dramatic" out of context.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    6. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

      not exactly.
      as everyone that hunted once in their life knows, wild animals run like hell at the sight of humans, no matter how 'dangerous' the animals are, like tigers, lions and whatnot... it is not wise to attack/stay near the humans, and the beasts seem to know that.

      cheers

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
    7. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by iddkfa · · Score: 2, Funny

      >I wonder why they stopped attacking when they saw her...

      she gave them access to her gmail account.

    8. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looking for the same creatures.

      Riiiight. And it wasn't the search for diamonds at all! ;)

    9. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by dronkert · · Score: 1

      Gorilla-panzee Chimpzilla, of course!

    10. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by visualight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except Polar Bears, they have no fear of humans and see them only as "food".

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    11. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

      Eeeehe, either the inhabitants of the polar regions do not usually carry guns, or the polar bears are pretty dumb. But you are right, bears are pretty dangerous, much more than lions and whatnot.

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
    12. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      with the exception of the coloration and the stone paddles, these "new" primates seem to resemble the grey gorillas in Michael Crichton's (sp?) Congo quite well.

      Guess that means we're due for an updated version of This hardware soon. :-)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    13. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tame animals, on the other hand, only run away from vacuum cleaners.

    14. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by zoloto · · Score: 1

      Probably because as a human female, they recognise that and for whatever reason they stopped. Maybe it was their way to bluff...

      Ever notice that 99.999% of everything on the earth, sans most insects and domesticated animals are timid or downright afraid of people? They recognise who the greater species is maybe?

      just a thought

    15. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by dajak · · Score: 1

      Ever notice that 99.999% of everything on the earth, sans most insects and domesticated animals are timid or downright afraid of people? They recognise who the greater species is maybe?

      I wouldn't go that far in attributing cognition to animals, but apparently there is some very significant evolutionary advantage to the 'being afraid of people' gene. I wonder what it is.

      There also appears to be a 'not being scary to people' gene that offers similar advantages.

    16. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by John+Fulmer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Hardly surprising - his book was inspired by the same tales that brought researchers to the same area, looking for the same creatures.

      Mmmm. And here I thought Crichton had just ripped off H. Ryder Haggard and Edgar Rice Burroughs, who both used most of the same elements as Congo. What *COULD* I have been thinking.
    17. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, no.

      Animals are afraid of most other animals, unless they know what it is. Humans are naturaly afraid of other animals, too, unless we know what they are and that they won't hurt us. Especialy the ones that are just as big as us.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    18. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May it be her resemblance to Margaret Thatcher?

    19. Re: whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > The apes thought they were going after a wounded antelope, when they realized they had been tricked, they ran away.

      Curiously, when the explorers returned to camp they found that their beds had been short-sheeted.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  17. Killing Lions? by unassimilatible · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm sorry, but unless these apes are carrying .300 Winchester Magnums, I'm not buying that they can kill full grown lions.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Killing Lions? by dnoyeb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are probably stronger than lions, and quite a bit more intelligent. Much like a man fighting a Dog. Man should win.

    2. Re:Killing Lions? by nick-less · · Score: 1

      They are probably stronger than lions, and quite a bit more intelligent. Much like a man fighting a Dog. Man should win.

      Well, good luck then ;-)

    3. Re:Killing Lions? by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next up on Slashdot:
      Geek Vs Dog, who will win?

      Commentator #1: Well Bob considering the fact that the geek has no weapons I'm siding with the dog.
      Commentator #2: I agree Bob, while the geek is more intelligent, I think the only thing running through that mind is how much he wished he had saved the game, if only this were a game.

      I need sleep.

    4. Re:Killing Lions? by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a group of these came upon a lone Lion, perhaps a young male, I would not be surprised if they were able to take him down. My own perception would be that one or other side would flee.

      Incidently, you need to understand Chips as far as I can see, and Chips are far more brutal and aggresive in using troops and patrols in their area than most people understand. They will and do go hunting other groups for the kill.

      There was a recent documentary where the scientists believe human warefare is an extension of the primal behaviour in chips and their territory. Along side this was captured on film a troop of chips that went on a patrol in the pure purpose of hunting down and killing other chips in the area. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

      Would such a tribe allow lions or other predators in their area if they are powerful enough and agressive enough? That remains an open debate. These fearsome creatures may simply be scaring the locals and thus gaining notariety in doings so. As simple a thing as a dead lion and this group of apes can be a case of 2+2 =7

      AdmV

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    5. Re:Killing Lions? by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Well now. There is no indication as to

      1. How many apes per lion we are talking about

      2. The method of attack.

      So, assuming, one lion, and 20 apes up trees dropping large stones, and following up with a branch-carrying beating, I'm not so sure.

    6. Re:Killing Lions? by jebell · · Score: 1, Funny

      Chips? You probably mean the kind made with Olestra. 'Cuz they "may cause oily discharge." That would be pretty brutal.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    7. Re:Killing Lions? by kai.chan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You fail to consider that these apes have been training in a secret Shaolin Temple located in the Congo. They have mastered the art of Shaolin Kung Fu and can flip out and kill anyone they want.

    8. Re:Killing Lions? by wobblie · · Score: 1

      I could believe it. Gorillas are hideously strong, completely out of proportion to their size. They move that 250 pounds around the trees as if they were weightless.

    9. Re:Killing Lions? by Fortyseven · · Score: 0

      I must learn how to do this.

    10. Re:Killing Lions? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I've seen film of an adult male ape snapping a four inch thick green bamboo trunk the way a person would snap a pencil.

      If you crossed a gorilla's strength with a chimpanzee's nasty attitude, and you'd have one bad-ass ape.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:Killing Lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its actually not that hard to defeat a dog. Simply kick it in the nose as hard as you can. That usually will stop it.

    12. Re:Killing Lions? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Along side this was captured on film a troop of chips that went on a patrol in the pure purpose of hunting down and killing other chips in the area.

      I believe I saw something like that about chimps that Jane Goodall observed. I saw a documentary about a group of chimps that grew too large and some were exiled to keep the group at a certain size. The exiled chimps were then treated as a rival group encroaching the main group's territory, hunted, and killed. This, shortly after having been part of the very group that hunted and killed them. Coincidentally, I learned in an Anthropology class that human tribes tend to divide if their populations exceed 100 members.

      There was a recent documentary where the scientists believe human warfare is an extension of the primal behaviour in chips and their territory.

      Human behaviour has been observed as an extension of primal instincts for some time now. I believe I heard of a book called The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris that was controversial when it was first published in 1967 because it observed human behaviour from a zoological perspective. I have also seen a documentary called Human Instinct by Robert Winston that also does the same sort of comparisons. There is also a book that complements the documentary.

      I think that greed also has its roots in primal instincts. I also saw a video of Jane Goodall (again) feeding chimps. They used to scatter bananas around everywhere, and the pack of chimps would come along and just peacefully eat. However, one time, she decided to place all the bananas in a pile without realising the consequences. The chimps got into a big frenzy, fighting over the pile, with the alpha male keeping it for himself and keeping others away from it. After this, Goodall made it clear that they must never feed the chimps in this way again. It seemed similar to how animals feeding over a carcass with fight with one another. Despite the fact that money is an abstract concept, I think the human mind it somehow perceives it as a "pile of bananas", and elicits the same primal response. That's just my personal opinion, however.

    13. Re:Killing Lions? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      One of the articles says the locals don't differentiate between different types of apes; only the tree-beaters and lion-killers, where tree-beaters they could subdue with poison arrows, and the lion-killers too big to subdue quickly with the same arrows. So the distinction is partly based on size, but also on whether they can be turned into food.

      Now, if they don't make a distinction about the apes, would they make a distinction about lions? Maybe their word for "lion" means "any big feline" and not just Panthera Leo. Maybe the bondo chimps kill leopards or other solitary but much smaller cats, all of which just happen to be called "lions" by the locals.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    14. Re:Killing Lions? by mikeee · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the chimp's brains; gorillas are relatively clever, but not like chimps. I wouldn't be astonished to see them using clubs or carrying stones for throwing.

    15. Re:Killing Lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats assuming that he will stand still long enough, of course.

    16. Re:Killing Lions? by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a cubs game.

    17. Re:Killing Lions? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      If you're fighting a dog and you're willing to kill it, it's _very_ easy to win. Simply grab its forelegs, and pull them apart. Do this with a bit of force, and it'll drop dead.

      Otherwise, just punch the fucker on the nose. Most deaths due to dog attacks are due to the victim freezing, and simply screaming / flailing helplessly against the animal, or two or more dogs attacking someone at once.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    18. Re:Killing Lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      geek vs dog... I'd probaly bet on the dog too. But an agerave healthy man vs a dog, i'd bet on the man... Me vs the dog... how much money do ya have? I'll take it all... bare handed it's not too hard to kill a dog if you think about it first... sure I might get hurt... that happens in a fight... but the dog will die.

  18. Funny bit by mirko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Locals say it is notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions.

    IT's new, but already notorious... and it's been slashdotted as well.

    On a more serious basis, why don't the "new scientists" directly ask the locals about the species they know, I am sure they'd find out many things instead of just tracking these on their own.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:Funny bit by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you RTFuckingA(s)? They already have, and the locals divide the local apes into 'tree-beaters' and 'lion-killers'. I guess they asked a few more questions but the indigenous people mostly only care if they can eat it or it can kill them.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  19. Bushmeat by kyhwana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wonder how long till they get turned into bushmeat

    --
    My email addy? should be easy enough.
    1. Re:Bushmeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As one of the articles mentions, they already attempt to...

  20. why do we need to flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that things are british or australian?

    I suppose you need to point out lesser known quality brands that aren't the USian kool-aid.

  21. Looking at the ape's specs... by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm glad that the cliche about technology (it will be applied first in porn) does not apply to zoological discoveries too.

    *phew*

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    1. Re:Looking at the ape's specs... by aussie_a · · Score: 0

      Obviously you've never heard of bestiality. err... although that isn't to say I've heard of it. I'll be going to bed now I think.

    2. Re:Looking at the ape's specs... by gosand · · Score: 0
      I'm glad that the cliche about technology (it will be applied first in porn) does not apply to zoological discoveries too.

      Unless it was really Ron Jeremy on vacation.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    3. Re:Looking at the ape's specs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering this is a large apezillazee that can kill a lion with it's bare hands...

      I'd love to see video, fresh after capture, of a brave scientist attempting to mate with it.

      For some reason I have memories of the first Starship Troopers movies echoing in my head.

  22. More information by polyp2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    this seems to be related and has pictures and better info - just look at the size of those footprints?

    http://karlammann.com/bondo.html

    Bigfoot ?

    Nick...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:More information by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      [...] Needless to say, that we are totally dismayed with Dr. William's unprofessional attitude and her unscientific and mendacious press release.

      This simply can not be the basis for future cooperation and we shall inform the local, regional and central authority by copy of this letter that from now on Dr. Williams is no longer welcome in the project area, as per the terms and conditions of our existing research and conservation agreement with the authorities.

      Consequently, any further interference by Dr. William's may adversely affect the project and the people of Bili.

      Yours sincerely,
      Karl Ammann, Hans A. Wasmoeth


      From the aforementioned website. Looks like we might be dealing with some vapor-meatware here.

  23. Yeah right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can this realy be true? An ape which lives in the jungle known to kill lions that live on the plains - got to be a hoax....

    1. Re:Yeah right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it sounds a lot like some kind of hoax. It would be more believable if the chimps would walk on water though.

  24. Discovery? by kc0re · · Score: 0

    We discovered this species years ago. In Montana, I believe. We don't call it a primate ape though, I think us Americans call it "B I G F O O T" Just a thought.

  25. Wouldn't it be cool if... by denlin · · Score: 1

    the species turned out to be that known as "bigfoot" or that of a wookie.

    --
    Yes, I have RTFA. Yes, I have a girlfriend. Yes, I'm new here. And no, I don't want a free iPod.
  26. skeptical by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the BBC:

    If we found something interesting it would attract more investment. People would be more interested in conserving it.

    That can't help but make me skeptical -- these people have a compelling reason to hype these reports in order to encourage conservation and protection of the area.

    It would be pretty interesting if it's true, however -- my guess would be that a large animal capable of avoiding detection for so long in well-explored areas would be interestingly intelligent...

    --
    Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
    1. Re:skeptical by lkaos · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty interesting if it's true, however -- my guess would be that a large animal capable of avoiding detection for so long in well-explored areas would be interestingly intelligent.../i

      I'm not surprised given the region. It's not so much that they area is impossibly dense or remote but that there's been so much turmoil in this region over the past century that it's quite inhospital to exploration.

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));
    2. Re:skeptical by sstidman · · Score: 1
      --
      Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
  27. Re:no photos? by pe1rxq · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its nothing more than sensationalist press...
    The apes do exist but they are simply chimpansees. According to collected DNA not even a new subspecies but part of the 'schweinfurthii' family.

    They just get larger then most chimps, which is not totally uncommon.

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  28. Re:linkie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats just a regular gorilla

  29. Not discovered every day? by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Funny

    In either case, primates aren't discovered every day

    I discover primates every day! Why, just today, I discovered a bus full of them. They made incessant noises and smelled funny, but they were indisputably primates. However, when I tried to mimic one of their mating rituals, I was physically assaulted, a very disappointing turn of events for science.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    1. Re:Not discovered every day? by Ayaress · · Score: 0

      I think they mean new species of primates. You just ran into a bunch of high school kids playing street hocky from the sounds of it. Strange as they are, they discovered those a long time ago.

    2. Re:Not discovered every day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That strange smell is deodorant.

    3. Re:Not discovered every day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay outta da Hood!

  30. International Waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quick! Capture one so we can pit it against a silverback in an offshore knife fight!

  31. Hybrid? by Talisman · · Score: 1, Funny

    There is speculation that it might be a gorilla/chimp hybrid species. I'm hoping the chimp was the 'giver' in that scenario.

    --

    "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    1. Re:Hybrid? by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Funny
      There is speculation that it might be a gorilla/chimp hybrid species. I'm hoping the chimp was the 'giver' in that scenario.

      Well, it would have made the day of the gorilla (gorilless?). Chimps are better hung than Gorillas.

      I find it rather worrying that I know this.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    2. Re:Hybrid? by James+The+Gent · · Score: 1

      The maternal DNA (from hair and faeces) was chimp so if it is a hybrid it would have had to be a male gorilla and a female chimp.

    3. Re:Hybrid? by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      Even a hybrid would be a major discovery. As far as I know, it would only be the second primate hybrid known, and the only great-ape hybrid. Just as long as I don't hear the word Humanzee brought up, I think I'll keep reading. Whoever would volunteer for that experiment is both a hero to genetic science and a complete and utter freak, and guess which of those two will be remembered most fifty years from now?

    4. Re:Hybrid? by Ayaress · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which would also be the logical conclusion from their behavior. Despite the stereotypes, male chimps are considerably more violent than gorillas, which are generally pretty laid-back if they're not threatened. If a female gorilla came anywhere near a troop of chimps, the males would most likely go ape-shit (pardon the pun) and chase her away. A lone female chimp would probably have a much better chance at approaching a group of gorillas.

    5. Re:Hybrid? by kidgenius · · Score: 1
      I find it rather worrying that I know this.

      Don't worry, you aren't the only one.

    6. Re:Hybrid? by medscaper · · Score: 1
      Chimps are better hung than Gorillas.

      More interesting still is that a search for "chimp penis" on Google images returns one match and one match only.

      A Canadian flag.

      Concidence?

      I think not.

      --
      Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
    7. Re:Hybrid? by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      [I find it rather worrying that I know this. ]

      Don't worry, you aren't the only one.

      Some information acts on the human mind in the same way as a virus on Windows.

      If you want something which really sticks, I recomend the picture of two male walrusses (ahem) doing the wild thing from the book Biological Exuberance. I think I need to wipe my brain and re-install the OS to get that one out. Indeed, without even seeing it, the concept is probably now lodged firmly in the depths of your mind, and some day you will mention it to someone else and...

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
  32. Re:linkie by sheriff_p · · Score: 0

    mod parent down. That's an example of a normal gorilla, as any reasonable primate would have discerned.

    +Pete

    --
    Score:-1, Funny
  33. Zu Mangani by invid · · Score: 0

    Zu Mangani bundolo numa? Rota!

    Go here to translate from Ape to English.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  34. In other news .. by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 0

    New dish served in african and asian restaurants!

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  35. Re:linkie by Arker · · Score: 0

    That's just a gorilla.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  36. Ape which kills fully grown lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Same category as the 39 foot python I think.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid _3 355000/3355089.stm

    These apes have not been 'discovered', they have simply been newly categorised. The idea that they have never been seen before is a nice idea but nonsense.

    We may not like to think it, but the world is a small place now. There are no really remote places anymore and the idea that there are big animals roaming around somewhere unseen and undiscovered is a romantic notion which might be reassuring but can't hide the simple sad truth that the number of species is diminishing daily as we trash the planet.

    I'm sorry, but your ( and my ) unrelenting consumption is killing off wildlife apace. Don't let stories like this one make you think otherwise.

    1. Re:Ape which kills fully grown lions? by Lars+Arvestad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you to some extent, but I think you are forgetting/ignoring the oceans: Researchers seem to agree that there are many exiting species to discover down in the depths!

      --
      Reality or nothing.
    2. Re:Ape which kills fully grown lions? by benzapp · · Score: 1

      These apes have not been 'discovered', they have simply been newly categorised. The idea that they have never been seen before is a nice idea but nonsense.

      Did this AC read the fucking article? No, because even there it mentions they have photographs from the 1890's, when the region was part of the Belgian Congo.

      I'm sorry, but your ( and my ) unrelenting consumption is killing off wildlife apace. Don't let stories like this one make you think otherwise

      How is "consumption" affecting the Congo? What DO they export? Nothing. I don't think the problem in Africa is overconsumption.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    3. Re:Ape which kills fully grown lions? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You ignore the thousands of undiscovered species in the world's jungles and rainforests.

      Yes, larger more populous creatures have mostly been discovered but most biologists would tell you there are grubs, insects, small birds, etc. that are discovered still on a regular basis.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:Ape which kills fully grown lions? by Conspir8or · · Score: 1

      And I for one welcome our aquatic ape overlords!

    5. Re:Ape which kills fully grown lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not strictly true. Only a tiny fraction of the deep sea floor has been explored and nearly every dive they are finding new species

    6. Re:Ape which kills fully grown lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charcoal. They export charcoal.

    7. Re:Ape which kills fully grown lions? by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      That article mentions reticulated pythons but I'd swear that pic is of a burmese.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
  37. Re:Who cares? by aussie_a · · Score: 0

    Well now you that next time you go to the Congo not to make antelope sound... oh wait. Going to the Congo involves going into that unknown place others call "outside."

    You don't happen to live in the Congo do you? If not then yeah, it won't matter to you.

  38. From the FA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."

    I wonder what kind of face she has ?

  39. HOW do they kill lions? by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Chimpanzee's do employ natural objects in order to get maggots in trees. I just want to know, how do these apes kill lions? Do they use stones? Jaws of animals? Sure they can probably use their fists, but if they used tools, well it'd certainly be something noteworthy.

    1. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      According to locals it says. As we know peasents arn't always 100% accurate. More likely a large group of them once killed a lame diseased lion long ago and someone happened to see it. Even a 200kg Gorilla wouldn't stand a chance with a fully grown healthy adult lion.

    2. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by silverbax · · Score: 1

      They lure them into traps with promises of free viagra and no money down real estate careers.

    3. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so they're of Nigerian descent.

    4. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by balster+neb · · Score: 1

      I think that more interesting would be the intelligence they show when attacking the lions (assuming the stories are true).

      Do they plan ahead and work in teams? Do they pass on knowledge to the younger ones? Do they lay traps, ambush and deceive like in guerilla warfare (no pun intended)? Anyway, I don't think that they'll be able to take on a formidable predator like a lion too easily. The stories are probably just stories.

    5. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Do they pass on knowledge to the younger ones?

      I asked one, and got this answer:

      Ooh oh aaaah wooo ah ooooo aaaah waaaooo ooooh ooh!

    6. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Noteworthy how? Many primates use tools.

    7. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by DaddyDonMynack · · Score: 1

      True, but do they use Snap-On Tools? http://www.snapon.com/

    8. Re:HOW do they kill lions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chimps commonly kill monkey's... the first thing they do in bite the top of their head, second is bite the arms. If their as big as the reports say, I'm guessing their bite is about as stong as a lions... and when you have a set of jaws, hands, and superior numbers/intellagence it's definatly possible. Likely no... like another poster said it was probaly an injured, or sick lion that was seen as a easy kill.

  40. "Discovered"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is hardly a discovery if the locals already knew it existed.
    Just because *we* didn't know it existed doesn't qualify it as being "newly discovered".

    1. Re:"Discovered"? by dykofone · · Score: 0

      I find this remark especially meaninful having been posted on the American "Columbus Day," in which we celebrate the guy who, though he was by no means the first to step land in the "new world," he is credited as the one to have discovered it.

  41. "notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions" by Leffe · · Score: 0

    Hmm, I think the APE is called a Librarian, they usually roam the L-space, but sometimes even they get lost.

    1. Re:"notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions" by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      Uh-oh, now you've done it!

      The Librarian is an Orang-utan. NEVER call him an ape - he doesn't like that...

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    2. Re:"notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions" by drewness · · Score: 1

      Orang-utans are apes. He hates being called a monkey.

  42. strange primate? by polle404 · · Score: 1, Funny

    strange primate?
    kills lions?
    ...
    I think they're called Home Sapiens, they've been around for a while.

    maybe if we give them an infinite number of typewriters, they'll recreate the source for windows?

    --

    ~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
  43. Using my crystal ball... by Fringex · · Score: 0

    I can see a made for TV movie coming from this.

  44. Re:no photos? by Arker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try here.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  45. Re:no photos? by Drachasor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Care to indicate a source for this information? My own searches on the net show nearly identical stories last year (as we had here), though they said DNA was being tested. I was unable to find results on those tests. It was quite curious. -Drachasor

  46. Re:no photos? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, these chimps are the equivalent of the people from the Norse region?

    If you look at humanity, you find a huge range of adult sizes along with a wide range of colorations. As closely related as apes are, I'd expect the same.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  47. Humans are very very scary... by Gopal.V · · Score: 3, Insightful
    > An ape capable of killing lions ran away after a peek--that must have been one ugly face!

    Most apes are curious creatures , the ones which are more intelligent are more cautious observers than curious imitators.

    A strange creature that walks on two feet, carries a metal paddle that kills , and kills adult elephants is a creature to be afraid of (oh, I'm talking about the average african explorer).

    Truthfully speaking , any sufficently intelligent species which closely observes humans in actions have everything to be afraid of them . Lions are comparitively innocous compared to a human . Even tigers turn tail and run from humans looking at them (or relatively good facsimilies of a face).

    It takes brains, learning and experience to figure that out .
  48. Re:no photos? by lee7guy · · Score: 0

    Interresting. Where did you find that information?

    --
    Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  49. Re:no photos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it seems to lay pretty small turds for such a big animal. Maybe not enough fiber?

  50. No thank you, by MadKeithV · · Score: 0

    I only smoke baboons.

    (Probably obscure Goon Show reference)

    1. Re:No thank you, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good show!

      Yes! Baboon show!

      (perhaps you had to be there)

  51. Re:no photos? by efatapo · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://karlammann.com/bondo.html They printed the phylogenetic tree as well as wrote up the findings. I lazily skimmed the text but the phylogenetic tree makes it look not that exciting. A new subspecies but not very diverse from other known species. Enjoy~

  52. not only by Is0m0rph · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    may this be a new primate but a semi-intelligent one at that. Evidence shows these apes actually possess laptop computers, internet connections, and are notorious for posting "first post" and "3 steps to profit" comments on nearly every Slashdot thread.

  53. Video That Proves Monkeys Felines by kai.chan · · Score: 2, Funny
  54. Just 2 metres tall? by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 0

    Shaquille O'Neal and Yao Ming would kung fu their asses.

  55. Link WARNING! by minus_273 · · Score: 3, Informative

    for the faint at heart, the link contains a lot of pictures, among them a rather disturbing picture of a semi decapitated ape with a lot of blood. Given how human they look, it might not be suitable for all.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  56. Re:no photos? by pe1rxq · · Score: 2, Informative

    A dutch news site:
    http://www.vpro.nl/wetenschap/index.shtml?3626936+ 4257491+19433379

    On the left side you can see some photos and a family tree. The yellow spots are where the DNA samples fitted in the tree.

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  57. bring it in the lab! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With some DNA tests, hopefully this confusing mystery can be cleared up.

  58. Re:no photos? by SinaSa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They don't "just get larger than most chimps", the articles state that while they are chimps from a specific family, their behavioural and "nesting" traits are a variation on both gorilla and chimp traits.

    That's neither sensationalist nor is it "totally common".

    --
    --
    The last digit of pi is four.
  59. Pictures! by DavidNWelton · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pictures here: here

    1. Re:Pictures! by trick-knee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh great. more outsourcing.

  60. RE: Humanzee by tilleyrw · · Score: 1

    Surprisingly, I would assume /.'ers to be avid browsers of the Internet. Obvious, that's not the case.

    Cases of monkeys walking on two legs, or Humanzees, are well known to science.
    It is believed to be a result of brain damage during illness.

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
  61. Re:no photos? by kryptKnight · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just get larger then most chimps, which is not totally uncommon.

    In fact about half of all chimps are larger than most chimps!

    --
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
  62. Oooh ahhhh.... by mstefanus · · Score: 0

    It has a cousin in the US.

  63. Spinning stories? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's interesting how the Animal Planet and Telegraph stories differ to the point of contradicting each other. Animal Planet makes these animals sound docile and peaceful, and only make a single mention about killing lions :
    tales that the forests were inhabited by large ferocious apes that could kill lions.

    The BBC also only makes one mention about killing lions:
    capable of killing lions.

    There's a big difference between "capable" and "does". Elephants can kill lions too, but that doesn't make them "Lion Killers", which is how the Telegraph article refers to these chimp-apes:
    known to locals as the "lion killer"

    Locals told him about giant apes with a reputation for killing lions, New Scientist magazine reports today.

    The Telegraph portraits them as violent and aggressive:
    The creatures are far larger and more aggressive than normal chimpanzees

    they are unusually aggressive chimps

    While Animal Planet describes them quite differently:
    Unlike gorillas, which invariably charge when they see a threat, these apes turn around and silently slip away into the forest when encountered, Ammann said.

    That doesn't sound too aggressive to me, for an animal that is supposed to go around killing lions for sport. Why for sport? Because they obviously don't eat them, according to Animal Planet:
    Feces recovered from the nest sites indicated an animal with a diet rich in fruit, which is typical of chimps.

    Rather odd to have such an aggressive and competent killer that doesn't eat meat. Either reporters are putting a big spin on this, or researches are trying to pique as much interest as possible to raise funding.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Spinning stories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, it has been observed that sometimes groups of elephants can purposely go on a lion-cub killing-spree (through trampling); a phenomenon greatly feared by lionesses.

    2. Re:Spinning stories? by dajak · · Score: 1
      It's interesting how the Animal Planet and Telegraph stories differ to the point of contradicting each other.

      'Aggressive' is an ambiguous description. Is that aggressive as in:

      • hunts, and potentially preys on man.
      • is fiercely territorial and will attack competitors for food from the same or other species, possibly including man.
      • will scare away or attack potential predators that approach the vulnerable members of the group, including man.

      The behaviour described, attacking silently and retreating if the situation turns out different from expectations, is consistent with a hunting party consisting of adult and strong animals only. Even cats are smart enough to retreat if they are surprised during a hunt.

      An oversight in feces research from nesting areas is that most meat would be consumed while on a hunting party. Chimps are not known for their generosity as far as I know, and bring little, if anything, back to the weaker members of the group.

      The spin on how 'aggressive' the great apes are reminds me of similar spin where 'proof' supposedly turned Homo Erectus from a noble hunter into a despicable carrion eater, completely ignoring the fact that all carnivores, including lions, never spurn an easy meal.

      Also, if apes eat fruit most of the time, that doesn't prove anything about whether or not they are competent hunters. That conclusion presupposes that apes prefer chasing meat over picking fruit. Why would they do that? For the dignity of mankind, maybe? Because hunting is 'noble'?

      Interpretation of evidence about our closest relatives and early hominids is somehow always affected by the position people take in nature-nurture debates about crime and war.

    3. Re:Spinning stories? by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0

      Buffalo (or is it Bison - they were big hairy cows anyway) do that too.

      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    4. Re:Spinning stories? by BurritoJ · · Score: 1

      You forget something very important here. There are more reasons to kill than for food or for entertainment. These reasons include self-defense and defense of territory.

      Since they are ground nesting they probably kill the lions out of self-defense. There are lots of 'peaceful' herbivores that kill predators, you mention elephants yourself.

    5. Re:Spinning stories? by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      It means that the apes can kill lions. Apes usually are in groups, while lions tend to run either alone or in herds. Now, take this scenario

      Lion: MMM, THAT THING IS HUGE!!! RAAAWWWRRR!!!

      *lion rushes ape"

      Ape: !@#!#$!@#!$!@#! EEK EEK EKK EKK

      *all the other apes look*

      *lion nearly tackles ape*

      *lion now has 8, 6.5 foot 400 pound gorilla's pounding on it*

      Then the locals walk across a bunch of gigantic ape's eating a lion's carcass.

  64. Re:no photos? by Coriolis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're absolutely right, the standard mitochondrial DNA analysis places them in 'schweinfurthii' (which, geographically, they border with).

    However, it has been pointed out that mtDNA analyses cannot always distinguish between closely related species, and the answer cannot be definitively known until a a full nuclear DNA analysis is performed.

    Also, it's worth nothing that, whilst chimps can grow to various sizes, these apes are considerably larger than even the largest chimp on record, and their behaviour is substantially different from typical chimp behaviour

    --
    Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
  65. New species? by mwood · · Score: 0

    That doesn't happen, does it? Species only disappear (entirely due to evil humankind). We don't get new ones anymore; that stopped just before history began. No?

  66. Re:no photos? by pe1rxq · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even the reports on the behaviour are overstated:
    -only the males nest on the ground, females nest in the trees. And the simple explanation is that they are to heavy to have good support in a tree.
    -The nests are not like gorilla's (besides the fact that they also don't sleep in trees) The chimps nest in moist places, gorillas hate water and would never do that.
    (I don't sleep in a tree, does that make me half-gorilla?)
    -They don't howl at the moon, but are simply more vocal on moon lit nights.

    They might be interesting because of there (size related) behaviour but the articles are definitly based on some sensationalist pseudo scientists.

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  67. Congo eh? by NixusAM · · Score: 1

    All I know is that if these things are found with large stone paddles, I am putting down a Laser based Supercomputer on my Christmas List.

    One other thing I would be looking forward to was a new attack dog to guard it.

    --

    ~~~~ No One knows What It Is Like To Be The Bad Man, To Be The Sad Man, Behind Blue Eyes. ~~~~
  68. Video Of Giant Ape by [000000] · · Score: 2, Funny
  69. Why is parent modded as overrated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the above post modded as 100% overrated when it hadn't even been rated yet? It's funny, maybe not *that* funny, but not worth being labelled as overrated.

    What's wrong with the moderators at this site?

    1. Re:Why is parent modded as overrated? by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      Why is the above post modded as 100% overrated when it hadn't even been rated yet? [...] What's wrong with the moderators at this site?
      You're new here, aren't you?
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    2. Re:Why is parent modded as overrated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Differing opinions; I thought the comment was pretty weak. Hahaha, penguins! *eye rolling*

  70. That's not an ape... by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    That's not an ape, it is Jimmy Joe Bob from across town. He went on vacation down there and has not come back yet.

  71. Don't forget the Bonobos by NateKid · · Score: 1

    Judguing from their sexual habits, humanabo is more likely.

    1. Re:Don't forget the Bonobos by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      Actually, not likely. A humanzee (the common name for a theoretical human/chip hybrid) would end up with an odd number of chromosomes (chimps have one less pair than humans, with one large chromosome correlating closely with two of ours). Bonobos have the same number of chromosomes as other chimpanzees, so they're not hybrids.

      While a humanzee would probably be viable and could live a healthy life, they would be unable to produce viable offspring like almost all hybrids, even between more simmilar species than humans and chimps. Also, a humanzee wouldn't look like a bonobo, most likely. The closest thing ever found to a theoretical hybrid was the chimp Oscar, who some people claimed was a humanzee until a chromosome count proved otherwise. He had an almost disturbingly human face and head, as well as a slightly different hip and leg structure than most chimps, allowing him to walk upright easier than he could stooped.

  72. GRAPE APE! by llZENll · · Score: 1

    Beagle, beagle...

  73. Actual Phote Here! by gone.fishing · · Score: 1, Funny

    http://64.203.97.121/images/gallery/19.jpg http://64.203.97.121/images/gallery/19.jpg

    1. Re:Actual Phote Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the creativity of a slug.

    2. Re:Actual Phote Here! by grikdog · · Score: 1

      Idiot! That's Homo erectus.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  74. Can a man kill a lion? by johansalk · · Score: 1



    This chimp is reportedly so huge that it can "kill a lion", yet if the dimensions reported in the story are correct, at "up to two meters tall (6.5 feet) and weigh between 85 and 102 kilos (187 and 224 pounds)", I can think of many humans, especially those in sports like bodybuilding, weightlifting, and basketball who are taller, heavier, and possibly more agile (even, Jordan can fly!). Heck, I've personally been friends with humans bigger than those numbers.

    I don't know how it would kill a lion. I pircutred a pack kill but I know that a lion wouldn't attack a pack.

    Would an unarmed human be able to kill a lion? what about those people (er, the christians!) who were thrown to the lions in Roman entertainment? were there ever any reports of an unarmed man bare-handedly killing a lion?

    1. Re:Can a man kill a lion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans normaly employ spears and/or clubs in such an endeavour. Gorillas (and chimps) however are a lot stronger than humans. Gorillas looking for food have been observed flicking away stones of about 1200 lbs. with one hand. They are also equipped with teeth more like a dog than a human. Check the George Bush pictures, they have fangs. Comparing a 225 lbs. human with an equally sized chimp is like comparing a bucket of lard with Conan the barbarian.

      Furthermore lions attack packs all the time. The whole strategy of lions is to separate a weak animal from the pack.
      On the other hand, lions normally attack IN packs as well...

    2. Re:Can a man kill a lion? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      sure humans are taller, heavier and more agile.

      but not stronger.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:Can a man kill a lion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only as long as the other four lions do not join to create the almighty VOLTRON

    4. Re:Can a man kill a lion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general chimps and gorillas are significantly stronger than humans. They have more muscle mass and their limbs are "hinged" differently. You can't make comparisions based on body dimensions only.

  75. Chips? by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Troll

    Erik Estrada spotted in the wilds of the Congo?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  76. It might be this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From snpp.com:

    Bart: Here we go. Kwyjibo. [places his tiles] K-W-Y-J-I-B-O. Twenty-two points, plus triple-word-score, plus fifty points for using all my letters. Game's over. I'm outta here. [gets up]
    Homer: [grabs Bart with his left hand, holding a banana in his right]
    Wait a minute, you little cheater!
    You're not going anywhere until you tell me what a kwyjibo is.
    Bart: Kwyjibo. Uh... a big, dumb, balding North American ape. With no chin.
    Marge: And a short temper.
    Homer: I'll show you a big, dumb, balding ape! [leaps for Bart]
    Bart: [making his escape] Uh oh. Kwyjibo on the loose!

  77. Re:no photos? by thicke · · Score: 1

    Here is a better picture.....
    http://www.wingnuttoons.com/grapetop.jpg

  78. Mokele Mbembe by JLavezzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember, folks this is the same part of the world where they have their own version of the Lock Ness Monster, Mokele Mbembe. As a Peace Corps volunteer in Congo-Brazzaville, I heard a lot about it. National Geographic couldn't get guides to take them into the swampy area northwest of the Congo river once the guides heard what they were looking for.
    Mokele Mbembe is reported to kill elephants. As to the whole killing a planes lion when this is a jungle ape, lions and elephants live in forested areas as well.

  79. Exciting News, but... by GeekZilla · · Score: 1

    ...has anyone seen my Dad lately? He left for Mossaka over 2 weeks ago and forgot his razor.

    --
    Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
  80. Bad movie references (Congo and Austin Powers)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr. Evil: Yes, but are they ill-tempered?

    Number 2: Yes, and they have special jewels that make laser beams...

    Dr. Evil: ...That we could attach to their fricken heads?

  81. Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does it matter if we "wipe them out", your coveted religion of evolution says nature will Just Make More!

  82. .300 Win Mag inadequate in Africa by swb · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't bother with .300 Win Mag in Africa, especially hunting predatory large mammals. You need one-shot-drop power and the ability to keep a decent distance. Plus you might have to stop a charging Rhino or elephant, and .300 Win Mag doesn't cut it.

    The safari standard is of course the .458 Winchester round, which carries a brush-clearing 510 grain slug and delivers a devastating 4700 ft lbs of energy at muzzle velocity. It will drop dead any animal native to this planet under 100 yards.

    A secondary option would be .375 H&H Magnum -- less muzzle energy than the .458, but better long-range ballistics. Overpenetration on soft targets might be an issue at close ranges due to the higher muzzle velocity.

    For backup, you might consider a gas-operated shotgun with extension tube loaded with 3" magnum rifled slugs. At panic ranges under 25 yards, 6 slugs ought to stop whatever's after you.

    For so-close-I-can-hear-its-breath backup, something that can handle the newish S&W .500 magnum round which delivers a breathtaking 2500 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle. .454 Casull would be your alternative option here. There may be some advantage to a Desert Eagle chambered for .50AE -- since it's a gas semi-auto, quick reloads and lighter recoil from a magazine might compensate for "only" 1600 ft lbs of energy (recoil from the .454 Casull *killed* a 12 year old when he tried firing one...)

    I'd keep the .375 in my truck (or have someone else carry it for me), keep the .458 loaded and in my hands, the shotgun on a sling and probably the DE .50AE with 2 spare mags on my side.

  83. See my vest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    See my vest
    See my vest
    Made from real
    Gorilla chest

    See this sweater
    There's no better
    Than authentic
    Irish Setter

    See my hat
    'twas my cat
    My evening wear
    Is vampire bat

    These white slippers
    Are albino
    African En-
    Dangered Rhino

    Grizzly Bear
    Underwear
    Turtles' necks
    I've got my share

    Beret of poodle
    on my noodle it shall rest

    Check my red robin suit
    It's got one breast or two
    See my vest
    See my vest
    See my vest

    Like my loafers?
    Former gophers
    It was that
    Or skin my chaeffers

    But a greyhound fur tuxedo
    Would be best

    So let's get to these dogs
    Kill two for matching clogs
    See my vest, See my vest
    Oh please
    Won't you see my vest

    (I really like the vest)
  84. And they shall name it.... by shokk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  85. Re:Pfft.. Goin's Ape-Shit over a Lion's Share? by davidsyes · · Score: 1, Funny

    I guess the "fully-grown" lion, figuratively AND literally, is going "Ape-Shit", for:

    1. being threatened
    2. being eaten

    THAT is really about the ape getting it's "lion's share" of the food chain.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  86. Only if you hit it in the right spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having tons of energy won't do a bullet any good if it passes straight through what you're aiming at and doesn't hit anything vital.

    A .22 is capable of killing somebody, but other people have been hit with rockets and helicopter mounted heavy machine guns and lived. Hell, there were some survivors who were at ground zero in Hiroshima.

    1. Re:Only if you hit it in the right spot by swb · · Score: 1

      Overpenetration is a problem, but not on large game and particularly not with soft-nosed bullets like the .458. Even without vitals penetration, the hydrostatic shock from 4k ft/lbs is enough to kill pretty much anything.

      Even with pass-through penetration, anything hit will bleed out quickly -- figure a 6" exit wound. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't live long with a 6" hole in my torso.

  87. Re:Is this STILL open to question? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    either you're a troll or just really, really dim. You don't actually have to kill someone/something to get enough material of them for a dna analysis...it's just that you need to convince the ape to open wide while you scrape the inside of its mouth with a cotton swab. Oh wait, we have stun guns these day...

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  88. Only one sighting? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
    From the BBC story:
    Primatologist Shelly Williams is thought to be the only scientist to have seen the apes.
    Personally, I would like to see some independent confirmation before we start declaring a new species found. I'll wait for the extended study.

    In describing her experience being "charged" by these animals in the wild, Shelly Williams said, and I found this quote interesting:

    These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared.
    I'd hate to say that says a lot, but that says a lot.
    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  89. The difference is strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember watching a show that showcased the strength of chimps. Even though they're small, about the size of a kid, they are tremendously strong. Their arms don't look too muscular, but they're able to easily lift themselves up using one arm, and they can do it all day.

    I also saw a video where they trained a chimp to do the bench press, and it benched something like 600 lbs.

    They also showed chimps fighting lower forms of monkeys, and these chimps corned a monkey in a tree, and 2 chimps grabbed the arms of the monkey and ripped its body in half.

  90. Re:Is this STILL open to question? by mikeee · · Score: 4, Funny

    So your plan is, you want to use a short range stun gun designed to briefly knock out a human, use it on an unknown species of ape which hunts in packs and may or may not be able to kill lions with its bare hands. And then you're going to stick your hands in it's mouth while it's 'stunned'.

    Can't say I'm surprised no one has implemented your plan.

  91. Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are looking at animals. Do you quiver when you look at hamburger meat?

    You sound a bit limp-wristed.

    1. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that parent poster. Empathy is so overrated right?

      Good thing you're obviously autistic. No pesky emotions getting in the way. Higher brain functions questionable at best.

      Sounds like you're voting for Bush soon huh?

  92. Coelacanth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not necessarily. There was no solid proof that the Coelacanth still existed until only a few years ago:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

    1. Re:Coelacanth by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 1
      Not necessarily. There was no solid proof that the Coelacanth still existed until only a few years ago:

      1938 is more than a "few years ago"... and they weren't legendary creatures with unlikely attributes like being vegetarians able to kill the dominant predator in their environment despite weighing less than half as much...

      There are all kinds of interesting things left to discover in the depths of the ocean -- every deep-sea expedition comes back with something (sometimes many things) new and amazing -- but the notion of such a creature hiding near well-populated and hunted areas seems unlikely. Not impossible, of course, but I think we're more likely to find a saquatch or yeti.

      --
      Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
  93. Re:no photos? But, can they... by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    -operate an "Etch-a-Sketch"?
    -paddle in a canoe
    -do the samba
    -remove hanging chads

    Who is it who said:

    "Given an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite number of chimpanzies, eventually you will get 'War and Peace'"?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  94. MOD PARENT UP!! by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1

    First time I've ever done this, but when someone makes a good point, it is worth to bring it out to people with moderator points.

  95. Re:no photos? Sticky, thorny, debatable questions? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    So, when validated, will this diverse creature warrant a name change?

    -Grimp or Gorimp
    -Chirilla (not quite chow-chilla nor chinchilla)

    No, but seriously...

    -Is there any muting of certain traits the individual species might have? For instance, would it be faster, meaner, more docile (other than eating full-grown lions, or getting it's daily supplement of a big dose of Vitamin-C (big cat), or would it lose an appetite for bananas or berries or the like?

    -What would be the side-effects of cross-breeding these animals with the rambunctious monkeys in India? Would this breed be an abomination of the religious/cultural attachment? Would it survive in the land of India compared to trees and jungles? Are the monkey jails there strong enough for this near-sasquatch, or would they have to claymore the thing to put it down. (This side toward ape:)

    -Would this be "transspecies" breeding? Would gee-dub-yah have a problem spending federal money on this (for weapons and DOD use, whereas he has a religious problem with abortion facilitated by federal money, even if they female's life is in danger, it appears...?)

    -Does the genus or any material in the DNA allow for these animals to be crossbred? How long would it live? Would it threaten to rival the "let's clone-the-wooly-lamb" projects

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  96. I appropriately name this new species... by neuro.slug · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Stevus Ballmerus.

    Damce. monkey boy, dance!

  97. Re: Humanzee by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

    A humanzee is a hypothetical cross between human and chimpanzee. Just walking on two legs doesn't make a humanzee, though it may encourage people to claim that the upright animal is a humanzee.

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  98. As a hippie's bumper sticker said by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
    "Live simply, that others may simply live"

    Mind you I say this by typing it into a form on my umpteenth computer (most of them have been used, though, so in that respect I do my part I guess) and while preparing to hop in my dinosaur-burning ricemobile and drive all of five minutes to work. And, the idea of having the saying on a bumper sticker at all is pretty hilarious, given the effect that automobiles have on the world, amounting pretty much to unparalleled environmental damage.

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

    I thought it was Big Foot they found, finally!

  100. aren't discovered every day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In either case, primates aren't discovered every da...
    you must be joking. In the last couple of years we have found so many! One is the CEO of a Utah based company, another was even elected president!

  101. re: new primates by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    --In either case, primates aren't discovered every day, making this a rare find indeed--

    I see lots of new ones in the office daily.

  102. Perhaps they finally found.... by rubberbando · · Score: 1

    the great grape ape!
    Now THAT was one big GORILLILLA!

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
  103. Probably not Pygmies. by freality · · Score: 1

    Sorry.. couldn't resist.

    It's interesting the comment in the Discovery article:

    "Unlike gorillas, which invariably charge when they see a threat, these apes turn around and silently slip away into the forest when encountered, Ammann said."

    This behavior alone could account for them remaining relatively unnoticed for so long.

    Again on the Pygmies, Turnbull's book "The Forest People" is a first-hand account of Turnbull's experiences with the Pygmies of the Congo. In it, he describes how vast and uncharted the Congo forests still are, saying there are areas many hundreds of miles wide where only the Pygmies know well. And of course, the Pygmies don't have much to do with people from outside the forest.

    It's nice to think of expansive lands right here on Earth that are still not within the long view of Us.

  104. Re:no photos? Ever heard of the planet Vulcan? by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Funny

    (read this a humorous junk science...)

    Like Vulcans, THIS particular ape has a superprocessor gland which reprocesses fecal matter extremely efficiently. There is efficacy to this this modality. By extraction the most of the moisture, the condensed, ambient-temperature-dried fecal matter is less of a matter for this beast. Being a water-carrying creature, it has no need for humps on its back or breasts, as it can shed the containers as necessary.

    Flight or Fight is probably not an issue for this king of the jungle, for if it can take down a full-sized, adult lion, it probably has no need to dump its bowels in one instance while running.

    Possibly, the pellets can serve as "bread crumbs" for its own kind to keep up, or as a "bait and switch" lure for its prey. Prey dumb enough to follow THAT shit is prey that better pray.

    By exploiting this quirk in nature, the whacky of presidents can authorize expenditures in the effort to have fewer sleepless nights "wond'rin' hwo to pertekt da 'merikun peep-hole"...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  105. Re:Is this STILL open to question? by br0ck · · Score: 1

    Researchers often tranquilize even the biggest of land animals to either move them or check their health. And I don't think it would be a huge stretch to call a tranquilizer gun a stun gun.

  106. There's always artificial insemination. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Just as long as I don't hear the word Humanzee brought up, I think I'll keep reading. Whoever would volunteer for that experiment is both a hero to genetic science and a complete and utter freak, and guess which of those two will be remembered most fifty years from now?

    Don't leave out artificial insemination when considering lab creation of a chip/human hybrid. (And there are more than enough people who would do such things to creat an occasional hybrid "in the wild".) The main problem with a human/chimp "natural coupling" (other than cross-fertility) would be the hazard to the human partner, due to the extreme strength of the chimp. (This would make completion unlikely without an extremely cooperative or bound chimp, despite a possible plethora of perverts who might be willing to try.)

    A gorilla/chimp or human/chimp hybrid that tended to mule out would explain the rarity of sightings. And a human/chimp hybrid might well become much larger and stronger than either parent, due to the hybrid vigor phenomenon.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  107. Hastur Hastur Hastur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

  108. Abominable by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    It is the Yeti, descended from the melting icefields of Kilimanjaro to walk among us. X-Day is right around the corner!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  109. Re:Is this STILL open to question? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If we need tissue samples to get a full analysis, then why not just kill one of them?

    Because apes possess many of the characteristics that we consider morally important, and should be extended some basic legal and ethical rights, like not being arbitrarily killed.

    Geez. Jump right to killing one, not even considering a tranquilizer dart and a blood sample?

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  110. The reason they are stonger by Sean+Johnson · · Score: 1

    The point of attachment of the muscles and tendons to the bone. The attached points provide more leverage. Yours and my muscles attach to the very end of the bone where it pivots. Chimps and such have that tendon attached farther down thus providing more leverage and strength for a given muscle mass.

    --
    >>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
  111. HAH! by disbaldman · · Score: 0

    ...and you thought all those pictures of Bigfoot were fake!!

  112. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA...BambiGene? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Maybe these apes have the Bambi Gene and they smelled that she ate meat?

    Maybe she has bad blood and they have keen sense of smell?

    Maybe she had one hell of a bad hairdo (like a stormtrooper helmet)?

    Maybe she flipped them the bird in (human) sign language?

    Maybe she squated and paddled dirt and made noises?

    Maybe she pitifully/pathetically cried and wailed and they figured, "Well, we don't have to eat EVERY human we encounter..."?

    Maybe she threw something at them?

    Maybe, maybe... Monday Monday

    Maybe she sang a Cher, a Madonna, a Cindy Lauper, or Ella Fitzgerald song, (maybe the latter, and shattered their ear drums...)?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  113. Can it be? by punkin · · Score: 1

    Has someone found the infamous Grape Ape?

    Grape Ape, Grape Ape.

  114. It's obvious to a Tarzan fan by Nino+the+Mind+Boggle · · Score: 1

    These are the "anthropoid apes" that adopted young John Greystoke after his parents died.

    --
    ------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
  115. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA...Wild Pigs? by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    APES and other Animals:

    APES:

    -Maybe these bad boys cross-bred with the Apes of India... and supposing this, she hollers, "Yoni-Yoni-Yoni-Yoni.... kamasalila-saspanda..."

    --Maybe they wanted "dark meat" that day, rib-less and skinless?

    OTHER ANIMALS:

    As for "as everyone that hunted once in their life knows, wild animals run like hell at the sight of humans, no matter how 'dangerous' the animals are, like tigers, lions and whatnot.."

    Tell that to a co-worker of mine. He told me in that once in his younger days he and friends went hunting.
    A wild pig appeared and his "Mr.-I'm-Tough" friend confidently takes aim and BLAST! Off goes some pig skin.

    Pig keeps charging.

    Friends head for the trees.

    BLAM! off goes more skin, and a chunk of flesh.

    Wild pig keeps charging.

    Shooter furiously reloads. BLAM!

    Off goes a chunk of pig eye. Pig keeps coming.

    Shotgun jams or is ammoless.

    Shooter drops shotgun and does what friends did: hauls ass into the neares climbable tree and stays there.

    Pig rams tree, squealing, snorting, gushing blood a few minutes or longer. Eventually it dies from bleeding to death more than from that choice of shotgun used for hunting.

    Not ALL animals fear and run from humans. Nor should they. They SHOULD chomp, rip or slas our encroaching asses at least ONCE in a while, right? Right!

    I don't hunt, on land or at sea, but if I did, I'd only dive if I had a razor-festooned and cyanid-loaded, multi-layer suit that would poison the creature that ate me. I may dive to take pics, but not take a stabe at animal. They do what they have to do to eat. I'll do what I have to do to not be dessert, or deserted.

    Maybe a Bruce-Dern-/Black Sunday-like black box filled with needels could "fleschette" an attacking shark and defuse that attack/charge. But, woe be unta any diving partners on the wrong side of the firing line...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  116. Re:linkie by Edie+O'Teditor · · Score: 2, Funny
    That's just a gorilla.
    There's no such thing as just a gorilla. Well, unless you're a long distance away from the hairy great bugger.
    --
    If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
  117. Re:whoa...Chup, chup, chup, chupacabra chup-chup? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Sing along: Shoop-a-shoop.. Chup, chup-chup Shoop-a-shoop:

    http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/el_chupacabra.htm

    -----------
    Some interesting drawings of animals here...

    Any humus, umm, humans who look like this?
    -----------
    Yow-za Yow-za...

    http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/the_yowie.htm
    -- --------
    yeti:

    http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/the_yeti.htm
    --- -------
    SETI:...oops...

    Almasti: Eww, that's NASty:
    ----------
    http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com /the_almasti.htm

    Serendipity and the Yeh-ren dippity:
    ----------
    http://cryptozoo.monstrous.c om/the_yeren.htm

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  118. Re: Humanzee by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
    Cases of monkeys walking on two legs [msn.com], or Humanzees, are well known to science. It is believed to be a result of brain damage during illness.
    Beh. My call is that it's doing it as a piss-take.
    --
    1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
  119. Re:Is this STILL open to question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To hell with that. As far as I'm concerned, if it can't talk and it doesn't have human DNA, it's fair game.

  120. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA...Wild Pigs? by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

    tee-hee... only one measily pig? thats nothing... some dudes I know had to climb a tree to escape from a bunch of wild pigs (like 20 pigs), and they had to stay up there a loooong time because they did not have enough ammo to kill all the friggin pigs...
    those wild pigs are totally dumb and pretty furious... I should have stated that 'half-smart' wild animals fear men, it would be more accurate. and 'half-smart' surely excludes wild pigs (especially in large numbers!) :)

    OTOH, you said your friends were carrying a shotgun... that was pretty dumb... shotguns are for killing birds and rabbits... if you go into the wilderness without a rifle at least carry a decent revolver, like a .44 magnum or even a .357... those dudes I mentioned had shitty shotguns and a .38cal revolver with little ammo.

    --


    ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
  121. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA...Wild Pigs? by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

    oh, by the way, if you ever go into the wilderness, please DO carry a decent gun and enough ammo to defend yourself against that kind of stuff... even if you are a convict tree-hugger, at least carry an airgun and enough tranquilizer darts, and know what you are doing... being dismembered by a bunch of wild pigs is not funny!

    cheers

    --


    ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
  122. Monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monkeys are funny

  123. Bigfoot by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    From reading the descriptions it sounds an aweful lot like bigfoot.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  124. ...are you implying... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    That this new ape is a Democratic member of congress?

    Sera

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  125. I'm not so sure that's the only reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually if that's the case, the tradeoff would be more leverage but slower speed.

    But many animals are both stronger AND faster. An ounce of their muscle just seems to do more work than an ounce of ours. Maybe our muscles are just evolved to be more steady and precise, with the tradeoff of being weaker? Or maybe they're just more energy efficient?

  126. Chimpzilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, that term is already copyrighted for the next version of Phoenix...I mean Firebird...I mean Firefox...I mean...oh screw it.

  127. Troll alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderaters? You all stupid or asleep (or both)?

    This is an obvious troll. Simple response is we haven't had this many extinctions in 65 million years. It's not natural. If you're going to be this silly, try putting uranium in your cereal for breakfast. After all, uraniums's part of the planet so it's natural food.

  128. Um, no by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Moste likely, you'd be able to get alot of the DNA from hair or bits of dead skin left by the ape.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Um, no by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 1

      You can also get DNA from feces; one of the articles says that scientists have already collected some poop from these mystery critters.

      --
      "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
  129. It must be a... by kc0dxh · · Score: 1

    Wookie. 2m tall, sounds about right. Large like a gorilla, but more like a chimp or orangutan? Yep, it's Chebacca alright.

    --

    --- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc

  130. Not only that but by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

    Eventually all species will become extinct.

    You didn't think this planet was going to last forever did you?

  131. Poachers in Gorilla suits you idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lions think they have an easy meal and the poachers blow them away! Oldest trick in Africa!

  132. Ahh HA! by cmdrwhitewolf · · Score: 1

    So that's where my faded albino wookie costume disappeared too...

    --
    [Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
  133. great.... by Vash_066 · · Score: 1

    awww great thats all us Humans need......more competition.

  134. I Saw This on TV Once by Cruxus · · Score: 1

    How can we be sure it's not just Homer Simpson lost in the Congo?

    --
    On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
  135. Approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CLF (Cthulhu Liberation Front) approves this message.

  136. Cdr Taco on safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though killing a lion might be more than he can do.

  137. For a "rationalist" your are pretty stupid. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Each species is so rare that is in practice invaluable.

    What you are suggesting is to dilapidate our natural heritage because we are too lousy to organize ourselves to protect it properly and take advantage of it.

    What a lame proposition, to dilapidate because we ignore how much we have.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  138. Oblig. by G-funk · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Hold it bob, we can see your watch."

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  139. Yeah. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    And you are going to die eventually, so I guess that means that pushing you into harms way (lets say an stampede of 2000 lemmings) is not immoral.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  140. Re:Is this STILL open to question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like animals. With fries.

  141. Blah, blah, blah. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Blah.

    You are going to die eventually.

    I guess that makes it perfectly ok and moral to get rid of you.

    And if that is on my best interst, I should just go ahead and do it. Like with those pesky trees.

    Great philosophy that of yours buddy.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  142. Yeah, we know. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Cocroaches are vey resilient.
    And so are bacteria.

    That would be a tep backwards of 1 billion years I think.

    No big deal I suppose buddy.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  143. Monkey Business by superyooser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any time an animal is about to become extinct, the environmentalists should convince the restaurant industry that the animal tastes good. That way, the evil corporations would be "tricked" into funding breeding programs. They would have a vested business interest in ensuring the species' survival. Are chickens or cows going to be extinct any time soon? I, for one, am looking forward to a McChimp Deluxe or Gorilla Whopper. Long live the primates. Now pass the A1 sauce.

  144. Interesting. Is it related to George Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I don't mean by marriage, either.

  145. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA...Wild Pigs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing a shot gun can't do at close range that a 38 44 375... can do... You just use a slug and not bird/rabbit shot. With a shot gun it's all about the ammo you put into it.

  146. Re:Is it this monkey ? by Mr+Europe · · Score: 1

    It must be this monkey (S.Ballmer monkey dance)
    http://homepage.mac.com/jpbarr/iMovieTheat er4.html

  147. They are on CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't we see couple of them on CNN everyday,
    chanting nine-one-one and justifying their 'chimp'ing in Iraq :-) ???

  148. .458 sucks by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    Look, I have a Ruger #3 45-70 that I handload to ~ .458 Win velocities, and I can tell you that those fuggers, 350, 450, or 500gn, have a trajectory like lead ballons. Useless beyond 150 yards, which a lion can close in a heartbeat.

    As for the Casull, great gun, but no way I am getting close enough to a lion to take a handgun shot.

    Oh, and you jokers who think a single ape can take a lion, LOL. I've seen video of a 100-lbs mountain lion jumping a 6-foot fence with a 100-lbs akita in its mouth. Now imagine a 400-lbs lion. Strong as apes are, nothing matches a cat's strength and agility, pound-for-pound (jumping spiders and ants excepted).

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:.458 sucks by swb · · Score: 1

      Whether the trajectories are any good or not is kind of immaterial, since the energy is for shit beyond 100 yards anyway. .375 H&H has better ballistics at those distances.

      The .458 Win is essentially Winchester's flavor of H&H's .600 Nitro Express.

      I think the big slugs lineage is important -- they were elephant guns, and to shoot elephants you have to get *CLOSE* and you get two shots (since your Holland and Holland double gun only can do two shots). And you've either killed the fucking elephant, or it killed you.

      If I lion can close 150 yards in 5 seconds, it's moving at 61 mph, which is probably faster than an actual lion can move. This means you have 3.5 seconds to shoot it (leaving 1.5 seconds for a high-powered round to kill it and have it drop dead at your feet).

      It's close, to be sure -- I'd bet Casull or .50AE would drop it. Someone was shooting the .50AE at the range yesterday. That just scares the shit out of me.

    2. Re:.458 sucks by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
      I agree, the 375 would be a good choice.

      Oh, and it is hard to imagine recoil harder than my relatively lightweight 45-70 loaded to the max (#3's can be handloaded really hot) with 500gn bullets. Not fun at all. The trigger guard actually takes skin of of my forefinger.

      Damn, I saw a lion video somewhere that is just so scary. A guy shoots the thing in the air as it leaps to kill him. They pulled the video for bandwidth reasons.

      --
      Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    3. Re:.458 sucks by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I just modded you 'insightful' in another forum.
      Not for your message content, but for your sig.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife