You're right. My mistake in the choice of words. I should have used "primate." No it wasn't a man in a gorilla suit. The photograph was of a large animal propped up on an ammunition box. You can get a feel for the size of the animal from the box. If I remember correctly (dubious idea), the animal was tailess though.
I wiil toss in my two cents that the incident that started my own limited interest in this was a account blurted out by a woman in an anthropology class who was obviously still spooked by the experience.
As regards the "ape" issue though, "big foot," at least the North American variety, has to be a Hominid, if real. The descriptions are of a bipedal, upright animal and casts of footprints are consistent with both modern and fossil homind prints - if bigger.
Your semantics must be on holiday. There IS evidence for each. There is no proof of either. The difference is critical in both science and forensics. The evidence for "big foot" is not strong because we all suspect it could be faked. On the other hand of the really famous incidents such as the incident in the road construction camp in Northern California where a fellow came out claiming to be the "faker," there is also _evidence_ that he was lying about it. Considering the Patterson film, while lots of critics have more or less assumed it is a man in a costume, so far no one has proved that, or actually offered strong evidence for the claim.
As far as other parts of the dispute go, there is no _evidence_ that the North Amercian big foot, if real, is an ape. The available _evidence_ - descriptions, drawings, film and casts - all indicate what would be classified as a hominid, if there were a specimen in hand, NOT an ape.
On the minus side, the big piece of missing evidence that would actually constitute PROOF is a body. People from all over the planet throughout recorded history have claimed to see hairy men (and women) in the woods, yet no one has ever produced a body or part.
Global warming is in much the same situation. Believers tend to attribute ALL evidence of global warming to human intervention. Disbelievers religiously eschew the very thought. Both stances ignore evidence, logic, and common sense.
Ivan T. Sanderson cameout with one titled Abominable Snowmen which was at the most comprehensive discussion available. Heuvelman's is interesting because it really cover a range of very interesting possibilities in as yet undescribed large animals. Heuvelmans includes photographs of the skin of a spotted lion (African) and the photograph of the body a large, female ape from South America.
One of the more interesting points of Sanderson's study was a large number of footprint-cast illustrations. One of the ready hypotheses that could be framed after looking at those casts, is that if there are such critters, the "Yeti" and the "Sasquatch" are different genera. The Himalayan prints resemble a large primate's prints, but the N.A. prints are Hominid.
Its always kind of entertaining to watch the true believers and the true unbelievers hack at each other.
is creationism, argument from faith. The CF issue was and still should be concerned with a) is there excess energy, b) inexplicable particles, c) the magnitude of the effect if real. The experiments are apparently repeatable, but irregularly so. You have the ONR investigating it, but no "thoughful" critical study going on. Simply fiath based responses from "sceptics." The problem has been that the entire discussion has reduced to an "is so... is not" form and a lot of the "psuedo" science is actually being practiced by "sceptics" arguing from authority rather than concerning themselves with the empirical issues.
realized that Linux has the biggest development staff on the planet, even bigger than IBM. Someone there said, "let's drop AIX. Linux can replace our in-house OS in most areas. Our development costs go down. Support costs won't change. We'll eat the lunch of every major server player on the planet. We can join the OS community AND get a monopoly."
... LANs is??? Historically, I suspect that it would be difficult to show that many - if any - regulations actually solved problems. They may outlaw a "problem," they may make it possible for a victim of a careless or malicious practice to sue, but rarely if ever has a problem been eradicated. Child labour, slavery, just exported to countries without the right to keep and bear arms. As far as VoIP goes, right now users are considerably less vulnerable than they would be once someone starts "protecting" their rights, especially since their constitutional rights are still there, even when they sit down in front of the keyboard. Regulation cannot be achieved in an uninvasive fashion.
I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.
RH is at least 10 times the size of SCO. IBM is about 100 times the size of RH. The math says that SCO will spend what little it has on lawyers. The principals will have bailed out long before, having feathered their mansions by pumping and dumping their stock. By the time a court decision has been reached SCO will - quite deservedly - have gone the way of Netscape during the suite against Micrsoft.
to replace it with Free BSD. I would appreciate it if you will first just learn something about the issues in this. Eric Raymond's article at Opensource.org is a good place to start.
have to support its share value weekly by maintaining its visibility in the media with damned fool announcements that could not be enforced until their case has been settled. For that matter neither does Red Hat. Has there been any discussion of Red Hat buying SCO?
go after BSD. One other thing they inherited with that code they bought was the constraint of the settlement that removed Novel and ATT from UC's gunsights.
...have essentially gagged SCO until SCO shows that its IP really is present in Linux code. SCO has failed in court in Germany to present a convincing in support of its allegations concnerning the inclusion of SCO IP in the Linux kernel. Presently it is facing contempt charges for this. Why don't the linux developers and major release vendors file countersuits here?
I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?
In the interview, he says that they specifically knew that IBM owned particular patents and that he refused to admit the code into the kernel UNTIL IBM licensed it. There is no contradiction betweeen this and his assertion that he does not research patents. The distinction is between a general principle and a particular instance. He might not want to know, but if the information comes out, then it has to be dealt with.
Because no one wants to blame a dead victim. The obvious fact as you point out is that Columbine-like events are not motiveless, senseless re-enactments of games. They are the final, extreme reaction to intolerable social conditions. I never shot anyone, but I did ambush a bully, leaving him in the foulest smelling blue-grey mud you ever had the misfortune to encounter. I then insured that the entire school knew about it.
There is a grey area where "their own interests" and your interests can come into conflict. That area in the music industry is where the public, musicians, piracy and the RIAA are in conflict. For reasons that have a lot to do with technology and a far more informed public, as well as "marketing" of fads at its worst, there is no equilibrium in the market. The RIAA would prefer that the public hemorage cash in to its pockets, and that musicians accept their lot as serfs of the recording industry who "one day" might be allowed a small moment in the sun of public popularity as determined by the RIAA marketers. The public has become addicted to "music" with many of the poorer sectors hit the hardest. The RIAA "pushes" for this addiction and prefers to retain vertical control of their product. Pirates and technologically saavy addicts as well as steady and increasing simplification and the increased availabilty of technology threaten this control and threaten the cash hemorage from a listener's pockets the RIAA needs. You can trace a fairly clear parallel between the music industry and the narcotics trade without much trouble. The only really positive thing you can say is that so far we are not - I don't think - seeing cartel warfare and executions.
It's just like a computer. It doesn't care what you want it to do -- it cares what the code says to do. If some blackhat find a buffer overflow in your code that allows him to break in and 0wnz0r you, it will dutifully let them do it -- unless it violates some higher policy implementation, like StackGuard.
Computers at their silcon cores are rational. The alw is fairly clear much of the time, but because it is a human language, the lawyer's practice is one of convincing a judge (who may be thinking about golf next weekend, or the doctor's annoucement that his ulcer is worse, or that he has prostate cancer) or a bored jury (whose minds were careful selected for properties that only the lawyers understand) that the legal code means what his client wants it to mean. Legislatures can't fix it. The only real solution is to cull them periodically.
There is more than one origin and use of the term. From the use made in the article, the author is laboring under the delusion that Linux is community of bearded, (crunchy) granola-eating hippies. There was also "Captain Crunch" the phreaker, but the author is unlikely to be familiar with the name unless he saw it on a cereal box. While the article looks fairly well informed about the "powers" behind SCO these days, the author is clearly pretty naieve about linux, its development, the community that produces it and uses it. He didn't do much homework about the non-SCO side, and apparently seems to forget that IBM is the opponent being gloved up in the opposite corner. SCO might win, but companies like IBM don't say "we'll see you in court," unless they expect to win. If they didn't, they'ld settle.
Tell us that your "irony" sense was damaged as a child. Your mother beat you about the head and shoulders until you were incapable of discerning the finer shades of sense and meaning in English, is that it?
Nothing aggravtes a journalist more than being denied information, except perhaps being denied the oppurtunity to use it. SCO has been long malarkey and absolutely unforthcoming regarding facts. Now IBM has told them, "we'll see you in court," which undoubtedly is part of the motive for SCO upping the ante. SCO can't afford the trial to begin with.
Now, to cap things, they have claimed ownership, through patent, of a technique that IBM owns - having purchased Sequent - and for which IBM probably also has a patent, as well as the history of prior art. The Times can probably see the writing on the wall for SCO, even if the SCO leadership doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. My mistake in the choice of words. I should have used "primate." No it wasn't a man in a gorilla suit. The photograph was of a large animal propped up on an ammunition box. You can get a feel for the size of the animal from the box. If I remember correctly (dubious idea), the animal was tailess though.
I wiil toss in my two cents that the incident that started my own limited interest in this was a account blurted out by a woman in an anthropology class who was obviously still spooked by the experience.
As regards the "ape" issue though, "big foot," at least the North American variety, has to be a Hominid, if real. The descriptions are of a bipedal, upright animal and casts of footprints are consistent with both modern and fossil homind prints - if bigger.
Your semantics must be on holiday. There IS evidence for each. There is no proof of either. The difference is critical in both science and forensics. The evidence for "big foot" is not strong because we all suspect it could be faked. On the other hand of the really famous incidents such as the incident in the road construction camp in Northern California where a fellow came out claiming to be the "faker," there is also _evidence_ that he was lying about it. Considering the Patterson film, while lots of critics have more or less assumed it is a man in a costume, so far no one has proved that, or actually offered strong evidence for the claim.
As far as other parts of the dispute go, there is no _evidence_ that the North Amercian big foot, if real, is an ape. The available _evidence_ - descriptions, drawings, film and casts - all indicate what would be classified as a hominid, if there were a specimen in hand, NOT an ape.
On the minus side, the big piece of missing evidence that would actually constitute PROOF is a body. People from all over the planet throughout recorded history have claimed to see hairy men (and women) in the woods, yet no one has ever produced a body or part.
Global warming is in much the same situation. Believers tend to attribute ALL evidence of global warming to human intervention. Disbelievers religiously eschew the very thought. Both stances ignore evidence, logic, and common sense.
Ivan T. Sanderson cameout with one titled Abominable Snowmen which was at the most comprehensive discussion available. Heuvelman's is interesting because it really cover a range of very interesting possibilities in as yet undescribed large animals. Heuvelmans includes photographs of the skin of a spotted lion (African) and the photograph of the body a large, female ape from South America.
One of the more interesting points of Sanderson's study was a large number of footprint-cast illustrations. One of the ready hypotheses that could be framed after looking at those casts, is that if there are such critters, the "Yeti" and the "Sasquatch" are different genera. The Himalayan prints resemble a large primate's prints, but the N.A. prints are Hominid.
Its always kind of entertaining to watch the true believers and the true unbelievers hack at each other.
You mean that by digesting SCO crap, they may produce improved crap?
is creationism, argument from faith. The CF issue was and still should be concerned with a) is there excess energy, b) inexplicable particles, c) the magnitude of the effect if real. The experiments are apparently repeatable, but irregularly so. You have the ONR investigating it, but no "thoughful" critical study going on. Simply fiath based responses from "sceptics." The problem has been that the entire discussion has reduced to an "is so ... is not" form and a lot of the "psuedo" science is actually being practiced by "sceptics" arguing from authority rather than concerning themselves with the empirical issues.
Thanks. Couldn't said it better.
realized that Linux has the biggest development staff on the planet, even bigger than IBM. Someone there said, "let's drop AIX. Linux can replace our in-house OS in most areas. Our development costs go down. Support costs won't change. We'll eat the lunch of every major server player on the planet. We can join the OS community AND get a monopoly."
... LANs is??? Historically, I suspect that it would be difficult to show that many - if any - regulations actually solved problems. They may outlaw a "problem," they may make it possible for a victim of a careless or malicious practice to sue, but rarely if ever has a problem been eradicated. Child labour, slavery, just exported to countries without the right to keep and bear arms. As far as VoIP goes, right now users are considerably less vulnerable than they would be once someone starts "protecting" their rights, especially since their constitutional rights are still there, even when they sit down in front of the keyboard. Regulation cannot be achieved in an uninvasive fashion.
I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.
RH is at least 10 times the size of SCO. IBM is about 100 times the size of RH. The math says that SCO will spend what little it has on lawyers. The principals will have bailed out long before, having feathered their mansions by pumping and dumping their stock. By the time a court decision has been reached SCO will - quite deservedly - have gone the way of Netscape during the suite against Micrsoft.
to replace it with Free BSD. I would appreciate it if you will first just learn something about the issues in this. Eric Raymond's article at Opensource.org is a good place to start.
have to support its share value weekly by maintaining its visibility in the media with damned fool announcements that could not be enforced until their case has been settled. For that matter neither does Red Hat. Has there been any discussion of Red Hat buying SCO?
go after BSD. One other thing they inherited with that code they bought was the constraint of the settlement that removed Novel and ATT from UC's gunsights.
has to settle, perhaps they can offer RH stock options;-)
...have essentially gagged SCO until SCO shows that its IP really is present in Linux code. SCO has failed in court in Germany to present a convincing in support of its allegations concnerning the inclusion of SCO IP in the Linux kernel. Presently it is facing contempt charges for this. Why don't the linux developers and major release vendors file countersuits here?
I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?
In the interview, he says that they specifically knew that IBM owned particular patents and that he refused to admit the code into the kernel UNTIL IBM licensed it. There is no contradiction betweeen this and his assertion that he does not research patents. The distinction is between a general principle and a particular instance. He might not want to know, but if the information comes out, then it has to be dealt with.
Question: why is IBM saying nothing?
Answer: they believe SCO might win, and are willing to sacrifice Linux if necessary.
Because, unlike SCO, they listen to their lawyers, when told not to talk about the case.
Because no one wants to blame a dead victim. The obvious fact as you point out is that Columbine-like events are not motiveless, senseless re-enactments of games. They are the final, extreme reaction to intolerable social conditions. I never shot anyone, but I did ambush a bully, leaving him in the foulest smelling blue-grey mud you ever had the misfortune to encounter. I then insured that the entire school knew about it.
. . . and feathers would seem more appropriate.
There is a grey area where "their own interests" and your interests can come into conflict. That area in the music industry is where the public, musicians, piracy and the RIAA are in conflict. For reasons that have a lot to do with technology and a far more informed public, as well as "marketing" of fads at its worst, there is no equilibrium in the market. The RIAA would prefer that the public hemorage cash in to its pockets, and that musicians accept their lot as serfs of the recording industry who "one day" might be allowed a small moment in the sun of public popularity as determined by the RIAA marketers. The public has become addicted to "music" with many of the poorer sectors hit the hardest. The RIAA "pushes" for this addiction and prefers to retain vertical control of their product. Pirates and technologically saavy addicts as well as steady and increasing simplification and the increased availabilty of technology threaten this control and threaten the cash hemorage from a listener's pockets the RIAA needs. You can trace a fairly clear parallel between the music industry and the narcotics trade without much trouble. The only really positive thing you can say is that so far we are not - I don't think - seeing cartel warfare and executions.
It's just like a computer. It doesn't care what you want it to do -- it cares what the code says to do. If some blackhat find a buffer overflow in your code that allows him to break in and 0wnz0r you, it will dutifully let them do it -- unless it violates some higher policy implementation, like StackGuard.
Computers at their silcon cores are rational. The alw is fairly clear much of the time, but because it is a human language, the lawyer's practice is one of convincing a judge (who may be thinking about golf next weekend, or the doctor's annoucement that his ulcer is worse, or that he has prostate cancer) or a bored jury (whose minds were careful selected for properties that only the lawyers understand) that the legal code means what his client wants it to mean. Legislatures can't fix it. The only real solution is to cull them periodically.
There is more than one origin and use of the term. From the use made in the article, the author is laboring under the delusion that Linux is community of bearded, (crunchy) granola-eating hippies. There was also "Captain Crunch" the phreaker, but the author is unlikely to be familiar with the name unless he saw it on a cereal box. While the article looks fairly well informed about the "powers" behind SCO these days, the author is clearly pretty naieve about linux, its development, the community that produces it and uses it. He didn't do much homework about the non-SCO side, and apparently seems to forget that IBM is the opponent being gloved up in the opposite corner. SCO might win, but companies like IBM don't say "we'll see you in court," unless they expect to win. If they didn't, they'ld settle.
Mod this one up. It is just what I was going to post. If every /. shorted about 20 shares of SCO, Utah would be deep in tears.
Tell us that your "irony" sense was damaged as a child. Your mother beat you about the head and shoulders until you were incapable of discerning the finer shades of sense and meaning in English, is that it?
Nothing aggravtes a journalist more than being denied information, except perhaps being denied the oppurtunity to use it. SCO has been long malarkey and absolutely unforthcoming regarding facts. Now IBM has told them, "we'll see you in court," which undoubtedly is part of the motive for SCO upping the ante. SCO can't afford the trial to begin with.
Now, to cap things, they have claimed ownership, through patent, of a technique that IBM owns - having purchased Sequent - and for which IBM probably also has a patent, as well as the history of prior art. The Times can probably see the writing on the wall for SCO, even if the SCO leadership doesn't.