Seems to me that certain moderators don't have any idea what security means.
Windows has a lot of viruses because it is so easy to execute a program and infect the operating system.
The more restrictions you put on that access, the more difficult you make it for a virus to spread.
Unless you're running a root, 99% of Linux users have nothing to worry about from viruses. The viruses cannot effectively spread themselves. That is why the "Linux viruses" you see are only in the labs of the anti-virus vendors.
It doesn't matter how many people are writing how many viruses.
All that matters is whether a virus can infect and spread.
A well designed operating system security model will prevent the infection.
If the infection is prevented, the virus cannot spread.
Don't erase drives or delete files or anything else. Corrupt the data in small ways. You could also alter Access database files. Changing a few numbers or letters. Make it so people will no longer be able to trust the data. If done correctly, people will lose days or weeks of work because the infection wasn't noticed.
So far, no virus has really gone after the data. They've deleted files but those are easy to recover from backup. They've crashed machines, but that just makes a bit of work for the techs to get to your machine with the anti-virus disk.
Since I posted that link, you've moved, once again, to those mythical "_real_ scientists" who believe. Another typical usage of "appeal to authority".
You said that she believed there were bigfoots. She doesn't.
When your example of a "_real_ scientist" is shown to be incorrect, you retreat to claiming that other, unspecified "_real_ scientists" believe that junk that you keep dredging up.
Well, this is boring now. I've had enough fun poking holes in your pet theories and debunking your claims. I hope you have fun with the other kooks at the bigfoot conventions. Bye.
Dr. Goodall: "Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."
She wants to believe in them. Those are her words.
Try reading up on the subject before you start talking about what other people believe.
But by the 3rd year of the President's term, the effects should be visible. That would be over a year since the first decisions had been implemented. Certainly by the end of the 3rd year.
I think you're right about the deficit and investor confidence.
No physical evidence. A theory with holes. You claim that not enough money has been spent to find bigfoot. Yet you don't believe bigfoot exists. But you claim "_real_ scientists" do believe it.
Well, it's been real. Have fun with the other "scientists" at the bigfoot conventions.
The sitting President does have a huge effect on the economy. Mostly by determining:
#1. what will be taxed
#2. how high those taxes will be
#3. what the tax money will be spent on
We've recently seen gains in the economy. But that was mostly due to increased military spending by the government. Those are not sustainable.
The President can influence the people spending money on the markets by showing them that he has the economy under control or by showing them that the economy is out of control and heading for record deficit levels.
That same logic was what got us Prohibition. Which did very little to stop the consumption of alcohol, but it did a lot to get organized crime established here.
Now, which is the worse problem?
#1. Drinking?
#2. Organized crime?
I'll take a bunch of drunks over the Mafia any day.
Our current drug laws aren't doing anything to cut consumption. Instead, we're funding the Mafia and the gangs.
I'm sure I might have missed some of what he said.
Perhaps you can be a little more specific? Is Rush against the Patriot Act? Is that what you're saying? That is part of Bush's domestic policy. Did Rush come out against Bush's statements about gay marriage?
""You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans" ---take a look at the symposium attendees (and people who meant to attend, but couldn't), Einstein. They're not 'weekend' or amateur scientists."
Again with the "appeal to authority". But you're wrong. The majority of the people listed are not scientists. Shall I list them for you? The is one biologist, one zoologist and one professor of anthropology. The rest are nobodies. Fans. Believers.
Mr. Dmitri Bayanov, Author, Hominology Investigator since 1964, State Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia
Dr. John Bindernagel, Retired Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Jimmy Chilcutt, Crime Scene Investigator/Latent Fingerprint Examiner, Conroe Police Department, Conroe, Texas
Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, Retired Invertebrate Zoologist and Head of Electron Microscopy Laboratory, Oregon Regional Primate Research Center
Mr. Doug Hajicek, President of Whitewolf Entertainment, natural history television documentaries
Mr. Alton Higgins, Assistant Professor, Mid-America Christian University, Oklahoma, BFRO physical evidence coordinator
Dr. D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Associate Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology, Idaho State University
Ms. Kathy Moskowitz, Forest Archaeologist, Stanislaus National Forest
Mr. Rick Noll, Curator, Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization
Special participants:
Mr. Bob Gimlin, participant in 1967 expedition resulting in the Patterson-Gimlin film clip of a female Bigfoot in the Bluff Creek drainage in northern California
Mr. John Green, Author, Journalist, Bigfoot Investigator for 44 years
Mr. Al Hodgson, Resident of Willow Creek since the 1930s, acquainted with and assisted many Bigfoot investigators as well as personally conducting investigations since 1962
Mr. Jim McClarin, Bigfoot Investigator since 1963 and member of early expeditions from northern California to Alaska
Mr. Ed Schillinger, Engineer/surveyor, observed 1958 track finds in Bluff Creek drainage
Mr. Tom Steenburg, Canadian Sasquatch investigator since 1978 and author (Reserve Speaker)
"what theories ? what methodology have you been poking holes in ?"
To start with, your continued posting about how an ape might have migrated across the strait. That's your theory. Well, you keep claiming that it isn't and that it belongs to _real_ scientists, but with the frequency that you post it....
While that may be true, there is no physical evidence to support it. None. Nor does it seem that anyone is looking for any. If it is an ape, then why aren't people seeking to capture it using the same methods as capturing other apes? That is how I poke holes in your theories and methodologies.
"Take a hint from the poster called "0111 1110" above...at least he's making some arguments based on fact, and not trying to teach Science 101."
That is the problem. Without having "Science 101", you will not understand where the problems in your theories are. You will accept any fantasy as a legitimate "theory" because it fulfills a desire you have.
"There are no 'logical fallacies', here, in my argument, since I'm not relying on the testimony of other people."
Yes there are. Because you have repeatedly posted what "_real_ scientists" believed.
That is the "appeal to authority" and that is a logical fallacy.
There have been lots of people looking for bigfoot and lots of money spent on the search, but it hasn't yielded any results yet and you say that is because there hasn't been enough money spent on it.
That's cyclic logic. There will never be enough money spent on it until it produces a bigfoot but it will never produce a bigfoot because there aren't any.
I'm talking about the forests in the Pacific Northwest. They aren't hard to get to. Finding a large animal there should be one of the easiest cryptozoological finds ever. You can stay at one of the bed and breakfasts near by.
Less than 8 hours by car from Microsoft's main campus.
They didn't have any weapons that could reach us and their army folded almost instantly when we attacked. Now we're paying over 4 billion dollars a month and it looks like we'll be out another 87 billion dollars soon.
We're spending money we don't have to defeate enemies that couldn't touch us.
I don't recall hearing Rush come out against anything Bush has been pushing. Maybe I missed that day.
We cannot detect something that does not interact with something else.
We have detected interactions that do not fit the previous theory. These interactions seem to involve particles smaller than electrons, protons and neutrons.
These measurements can be verified by different people, at different locations.
There is no "faith" in that.
"But we still believe them to exist."
Yes, in the way that people "believe" the sun to exist.
"It is faith that you rely on when you believe in reproducability."
What is there to "believe in" about reproducibility? You either can reproduce the experiment and get the same results or you cannot.
"You believe the sun comes up every day because it's been like that in the past, not because you've measured its speed and distance that morning. Welcome to any basic logic class."
That isn't "logic", that is "philosophy". "Logic" is part of philosophy. What you're degenerating into is "Solipsism". Again, a nice bit of mental masturbation.
""The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed."...is EXACTLY what those cryptozoologists are out to do."
Yet this has nothing to do with what the bigfoot people are out to do. You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans and ascribing attributes from one group to the other.
"I've been arguing with you, because you've been defending yourself with some interesting logic."
What defense? I've pointed out where the flaws in their theories and methodologies are. You've claimed that those flaws do not exist. You've resorted to "faith" and "appeals to authority" to support your claims that those holes do not exist.
But the flaws are still there.
"You, personally, have no proof that he exists."
If I had proof that he exists then why would I be saying that he does not exist?
"That doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't look for that proof, or that finding that proof is impossible, or that looking for the proof is foolish."
Looking for such proof in a structured fashion would be okay. Useless, since it does not exist, but still okay. I have been pointing out the holes in their theories and methodology.
"The past successes of cryptozoology have shown that it can pay off. Its success/failure rate, however, is admittedly not great."
And those past successes should be able to provide some criteria for future searches.
Since other animals have been found with less searching and less funding by following better practices, why has bigfoot been so difficult to find?
Construct a testable theory on why bigfoot has been so difficult to find. Then test that theory.
The same with sub-atomic particles. Once we could measure some of their interactions, theories were developed and new tests were performed to test those theories.
Given the existance of a large animal, how would we go about capturing one? Dead or alive? What methods of capture are available? How are other animals captured? How can these techniques be applied to capturing a bigfoot? If these techniques can not be applied, why not? What is unique about this creature? Why is this creature unique in these ways?
And that is how all those other animals were captured. By using experience with capturing other animals.
The simplist reason why none of this experience has worked now is that there is no bigfoot.
"Tom Swift's budget for his "search" is a drop in the bucket when compared to REAL (even NSF-based) grantee's budgets over years, for say, looking for new species in the Antarctic."
You are now comparing the budgets for setting up a base camp in the Antarctic to searching the forests in the Pacific Northwest? Of course there will be a difference. You can take a train to the forest, you have to charter a plane to the Antarctic.
You also skip over the species that Mr. Swift did manage to find, with his less than NSF budget.
He succeeded, with his budget, because the animals he was looking for actually existed and could be found.
No amount of money spent will ever find an animal that does not exist.
Yes, new species are found because of searches sparked by anecdotes.
Just as the search for bigfoot was sparked by anecdotes. Yet, despite the same amount of money spent, and the fact that the search can be performed in the Pacific Northwest, no bigfoot has been found.
"The people researching new species are scientists, indeed, but like I said before, the ones who involve themselves in pursuits that have had hoaxes in the media run the risk of losing credibility."
Why would losing credibility matter? Would not the fame from actually finding a bigfoot outweigh the risk of losing credibility?
Except that the scientists who are actually finding those new species are doing so by following the scientific method whereas the people looking for bigfoot are not.
That is why one group is generating successes starting from the same type of clue while the other just has theories and hoaxes.
"The theory that scientists propose strongly support the idea of a native North American ape is the real and accepted evidence of the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that the scientists, yes, _real_ scientists, have been going on."
Where is the evidence to support this "theory"? It is "propose[d] strongly". Is there anything more than someone's opinion?
No, there is nothing more than someone's opinion. Yet you claim that such people are "_real_ scientists".
That is known as an "appeal to authority" which is something called a "logical fallacy".
You continue that same fallacy in your claim "Most subatomic physicists and cosmologists will also agree that faith plays quite a large role in their respective fields."
That is a book on why religion, "GOD", should be as important as the scientific method. That has nothing to do with whether a hypothesis will be considered true forever. That is why theories are reproduced by peers. That is why theories evolve as our ability to measure increases.
Bigfoot does not exist and no amount of money spent will ever capture a creature that does not exist. Therefore, you will always be correct in stating that not enough money has been spent to capture one. When someone can spend more than an infinite amount of money on the search, a bigfoot will be captured.
Your proof of this is that other animals have been found by spending less than an infinite amount of money on the search for them.
Therefore, "GOD" is as valid as the scientific method as stated in "Galileo's Mistake".
I say that there is no bigfoot and because of that one will never be captured and that the "scientists" theorizing about how he got here and why no one can capture one are engaging in nothing more than mental masturbation.
I'm sure you'll bring up 'Gigantopithecus blacki' again, even though none of them have been captured in the Pacific Northwest. Like I said, mental masturbation.
There are lots of theories to explain what we can detect, but it all starts with us being able to detect it. We have detected the interaction of sub-atomic particles.
Now you're going off about "GOD". That usually happens when people run out of facts. No, faith does not have a place in the scientific method. Reproducability is all that matters. The theories are tested and peer-reviewed and those tests are reproduced by others to verify them.
Hoaxes do not make a theory invalid.
But an untested or untestable theory is mental masturbation.
The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed.
All your "theories" about bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster are mental masturbation.
It is your faith that makes them seem like more to you.
Loch Ness? Another example of lots of belief and very little science. But with lots of theories about why each particular belief could be real. But no physical evidence.
So, you claim it is a matter of funding.
Yet the examples you've given where real creatures have been found have been accomplished with far less funding simply by using far better science.
As for your question of "WHO" has done the searching, please check the records pertaining to Tom Swift, millionaire, who financed several searches for unknown creatures that actually found those creatures. Yet when his funding for bigfoot did not produce anything. That is a single example for you to start with.
You final sentence shows your lack of knowledge of the scientific method. Historians are not bound by the scientific method. Anthropologists and paleontologists start with actual evidence.
Bigfoot fans don't restrict themselves to actual evidence. They start with a desire to have bigfoot be real and then build "theories" about why it could be so. But their "theories" are not testable in any way. They just end up with more "theories" explaining why their previous "theories" cannot be tested.
You are somewhat confused as to the nature of the "scientific method".
Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless.
There are no creatures that have been captured nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such. Despite all of the technology used in the searching for such.
All of the theories about bigfoot lack one critical element. The explanation of why none have been captured or their skeletons found.
Until one is captured or a skeleton found, those theories are all mental masturbation.
The people gambling on the stock will do so no matter what. It is just a gamble.
But, our public record of the history and derivation of the code can be used to defeat SCO in court. We can do more research than IBM's legal team because we have more people with more experience with the code and the history.
SCO's executives will make money on the pump-n-dump scheme. Until the suit comes to court, there's really nothing that can stop them. After the judgement, we'll see what the SEC does.
SCO had a semi-public presentation with code snippets.
Why didn't the legal team go over the code snippets like you say?
Instead, other people looked at the leaked code and did the research. SCO wasn't doing what you say they should have be doing with the snippets and legal team they had.
Like the article said, SCO doesn't know the origin of the code and seems incapable of find the origin with their current and claimed resources.
I prefer hardbacks because they last longer and they look nicer on my shelves, but mostly I get paperbacks because that's what's available.
And I have not purchased a Star Trek book in over 20 years. Nor have I ever purchased a Star Wars book. But I did have a very nice collection of Perry Rhodan books when I was younger.
In my opinion, the only decent Callahan book was the first one.
So someone is most likely to pick up one of your less-than-wonderful books and form an opinion based upon that. That's just the way the books are arranged at the bookstore.
The same with Piers Anthony. You're more likely to pick up one of his crappy works rather than one of his decent books just because the crappy ones will be arranged to take up the most visual space on the shelf.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that certain moderators don't have any idea what security means.
Windows has a lot of viruses because it is so easy to execute a program and infect the operating system.
The more restrictions you put on that access, the more difficult you make it for a virus to spread.
Unless you're running a root, 99% of Linux users have nothing to worry about from viruses. The viruses cannot effectively spread themselves. That is why the "Linux viruses" you see are only in the labs of the anti-virus vendors.
It doesn't matter how many people are writing how many viruses.
All that matters is whether a virus can infect and spread.
A well designed operating system security model will prevent the infection.
If the infection is prevented, the virus cannot spread.
Don't erase drives or delete files or anything else. Corrupt the data in small ways. You could also alter Access database files. Changing a few numbers or letters. Make it so people will no longer be able to trust the data. If done correctly, people will lose days or weeks of work because the infection wasn't noticed.
So far, no virus has really gone after the data. They've deleted files but those are easy to recover from backup. They've crashed machines, but that just makes a bit of work for the techs to get to your machine with the anti-virus disk.
Since I posted that link, you've moved, once again, to those mythical "_real_ scientists" who believe. Another typical usage of "appeal to authority".
You said that she believed there were bigfoots. She doesn't.
When your example of a "_real_ scientist" is shown to be incorrect, you retreat to claiming that other, unspecified "_real_ scientists" believe that junk that you keep dredging up.
Well, this is boring now. I've had enough fun poking holes in your pet theories and debunking your claims. I hope you have fun with the other kooks at the bigfoot conventions. Bye.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:K-uJ-2R_gLAJ: www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp+%22Jane+Go odall%22+bigfoot&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Dr. Goodall: "Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."
She wants to believe in them. Those are her words.
Try reading up on the subject before you start talking about what other people believe.
But by the 3rd year of the President's term, the effects should be visible. That would be over a year since the first decisions had been implemented. Certainly by the end of the 3rd year.
I think you're right about the deficit and investor confidence.
So, you never said there weren't holes in it?
Well, that certainly explains everything.
No physical evidence.
A theory with holes.
You claim that not enough money has been spent to find bigfoot.
Yet you don't believe bigfoot exists.
But you claim "_real_ scientists" do believe it.
Well, it's been real. Have fun with the other "scientists" at the bigfoot conventions.
The sitting President does have a huge effect on the economy. Mostly by determining:
#1. what will be taxed
#2. how high those taxes will be
#3. what the tax money will be spent on
We've recently seen gains in the economy. But that was mostly due to increased military spending by the government. Those are not sustainable.
The President can influence the people spending money on the markets by showing them that he has the economy under control or by showing them that the economy is out of control and heading for record deficit levels.
That same logic was what got us Prohibition. Which did very little to stop the consumption of alcohol, but it did a lot to get organized crime established here.
Now, which is the worse problem?
#1. Drinking?
#2. Organized crime?
I'll take a bunch of drunks over the Mafia any day.
Our current drug laws aren't doing anything to cut consumption. Instead, we're funding the Mafia and the gangs.
If not, then why do you keep dredging it up?
Also, why do you not believe it? Is it because there are holes in it?
But you said that there aren't holes in it.
If there aren't holes in it, then why don't you believe in bigfoot? The theories certainly support it, don't they?
You cannot have it both ways.
I do not believe in bigfoot because the theories offered in support of it have too many holes and fail to explain the basic questions.
Did you have trouble understanding that?
I'm sure I might have missed some of what he said.
Perhaps you can be a little more specific? Is Rush against the Patriot Act? Is that what you're saying? That is part of Bush's domestic policy. Did Rush come out against Bush's statements about gay marriage?
"Domestic agenda" is such a huge topic.
""You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans" ---take a look at the symposium attendees (and people who meant to attend, but couldn't), Einstein. They're not 'weekend' or amateur scientists."
Again with the "appeal to authority". But you're wrong. The majority of the people listed are not scientists. Shall I list them for you? The is one biologist, one zoologist and one professor of anthropology. The rest are nobodies. Fans. Believers.
Mr. Dmitri Bayanov, Author, Hominology Investigator since 1964, State Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia
Dr. John Bindernagel, Retired Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Jimmy Chilcutt, Crime Scene Investigator/Latent Fingerprint Examiner, Conroe Police Department, Conroe, Texas
Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, Retired Invertebrate Zoologist and Head of Electron Microscopy Laboratory, Oregon Regional Primate Research Center
Mr. Doug Hajicek, President of Whitewolf Entertainment, natural history television documentaries
Mr. Alton Higgins, Assistant Professor, Mid-America Christian University, Oklahoma, BFRO physical evidence coordinator
Dr. D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Associate Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology, Idaho State University
Ms. Kathy Moskowitz, Forest Archaeologist, Stanislaus National Forest
Mr. Rick Noll, Curator, Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization
Special participants:
Mr. Bob Gimlin, participant in 1967 expedition resulting in the Patterson-Gimlin film clip of a female Bigfoot in the Bluff Creek drainage in northern California
Mr. John Green, Author, Journalist, Bigfoot Investigator for 44 years
Mr. Al Hodgson, Resident of Willow Creek since the 1930s, acquainted with and assisted many Bigfoot investigators as well as personally conducting investigations since 1962
Mr. Jim McClarin, Bigfoot Investigator since 1963 and member of early expeditions from northern California to Alaska
Mr. Ed Schillinger, Engineer/surveyor, observed 1958 track finds in Bluff Creek drainage
Mr. Tom Steenburg, Canadian Sasquatch investigator since 1978 and author (Reserve Speaker)
"what theories ? what methodology have you been poking holes in ?"
To start with, your continued posting about how an ape might have migrated across the strait. That's your theory. Well, you keep claiming that it isn't and that it belongs to _real_ scientists, but with the frequency that you post it....
While that may be true, there is no physical evidence to support it. None. Nor does it seem that anyone is looking for any. If it is an ape, then why aren't people seeking to capture it using the same methods as capturing other apes? That is how I poke holes in your theories and methodologies.
"Take a hint from the poster called "0111 1110" above...at least he's making some arguments based on fact, and not trying to teach Science 101."
That is the problem. Without having "Science 101", you will not understand where the problems in your theories are. You will accept any fantasy as a legitimate "theory" because it fulfills a desire you have.
"There are no 'logical fallacies', here, in my argument, since I'm not relying on the testimony of other people."
Yes there are. Because you have repeatedly posted what "_real_ scientists" believed.
That is the "appeal to authority" and that is a logical fallacy.
There have been lots of people looking for bigfoot and lots of money spent on the search, but it hasn't yielded any results yet and you say that is because there hasn't been enough money spent on it.
That's cyclic logic. There will never be enough money spent on it until it produces a bigfoot but it will never produce a bigfoot because there aren't any.
I'm talking about the forests in the Pacific Northwest. They aren't hard to get to. Finding a large animal there should be one of the easiest cryptozoological finds ever. You can stay at one of the bed and breakfasts near by.
Less than 8 hours by car from Microsoft's main campus.
They didn't have any weapons that could reach us and their army folded almost instantly when we attacked. Now we're paying over 4 billion dollars a month and it looks like we'll be out another 87 billion dollars soon.
We're spending money we don't have to defeate enemies that couldn't touch us.
I don't recall hearing Rush come out against anything Bush has been pushing. Maybe I missed that day.
Instead of focusing on how innocent people need these protections, focus on how criminals and TERRORISTS use these protections to threaten people.
After all, if a TERRORIST likes it, it must be wrong. Anyone who supports those protections is probably pro-TERRORIST or at least anti-American.
You have Freedom of Speech, but if you say anything against the government's policies, you can be investigated for TERRORIST sympathies or links.
Now it is all about packaging what you want as anti-TERRORIST while portraying anyone who disagrees with you as soft-on-TERRORISTS.
We cannot detect something that does not interact with something else.
...is EXACTLY what those cryptozoologists are out to do."
We have detected interactions that do not fit the previous theory. These interactions seem to involve particles smaller than electrons, protons and neutrons.
These measurements can be verified by different people, at different locations.
There is no "faith" in that.
"But we still believe them to exist."
Yes, in the way that people "believe" the sun to exist.
"It is faith that you rely on when you believe in reproducability."
What is there to "believe in" about reproducibility? You either can reproduce the experiment and get the same results or you cannot.
"You believe the sun comes up every day because it's been like that in the past, not because you've measured its speed and distance that morning. Welcome to any basic logic class."
That isn't "logic", that is "philosophy". "Logic" is part of philosophy. What you're degenerating into is "Solipsism". Again, a nice bit of mental masturbation.
""The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed."
Yet this has nothing to do with what the bigfoot people are out to do. You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans and ascribing attributes from one group to the other.
"I've been arguing with you, because you've been defending yourself with some interesting logic."
What defense? I've pointed out where the flaws in their theories and methodologies are. You've claimed that those flaws do not exist. You've resorted to "faith" and "appeals to authority" to support your claims that those holes do not exist.
But the flaws are still there.
"You, personally, have no proof that he exists."
If I had proof that he exists then why would I be saying that he does not exist?
"That doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't look for that proof, or that finding that proof is impossible, or that looking for the proof is foolish."
Looking for such proof in a structured fashion would be okay. Useless, since it does not exist, but still okay. I have been pointing out the holes in their theories and methodology.
"The past successes of cryptozoology have shown that it can pay off. Its success/failure rate, however, is admittedly not great."
And those past successes should be able to provide some criteria for future searches.
Since other animals have been found with less searching and less funding by following better practices, why has bigfoot been so difficult to find?
Construct a testable theory on why bigfoot has been so difficult to find. Then test that theory.
The same with sub-atomic particles. Once we could measure some of their interactions, theories were developed and new tests were performed to test those theories.
Given the existance of a large animal, how would we go about capturing one? Dead or alive? What methods of capture are available? How are other animals captured? How can these techniques be applied to capturing a bigfoot? If these techniques can not be applied, why not? What is unique about this creature? Why is this creature unique in these ways?
And that is how all those other animals were captured. By using experience with capturing other animals.
The simplist reason why none of this experience has worked now is that there is no bigfoot.
"Tom Swift's budget for his "search" is a drop in the bucket when compared to REAL (even NSF-based) grantee's budgets over years, for say, looking for new species in the Antarctic."
m /b lfaq_fall_authority_index.htm
5 59 706848/002-2032256-6249603?v=glance
You are now comparing the budgets for setting up a base camp in the Antarctic to searching the forests in the Pacific Northwest? Of course there will be a difference. You can take a train to the forest, you have to charter a plane to the Antarctic.
You also skip over the species that Mr. Swift did manage to find, with his less than NSF budget.
He succeeded, with his budget, because the animals he was looking for actually existed and could be found.
No amount of money spent will ever find an animal that does not exist.
Yes, new species are found because of searches sparked by anecdotes.
Just as the search for bigfoot was sparked by anecdotes. Yet, despite the same amount of money spent, and the fact that the search can be performed in the Pacific Northwest, no bigfoot has been found.
"The people researching new species are scientists, indeed, but like I said before, the ones who involve themselves in pursuits that have had hoaxes in the media run the risk of losing credibility."
Why would losing credibility matter? Would not the fame from actually finding a bigfoot outweigh the risk of losing credibility?
Except that the scientists who are actually finding those new species are doing so by following the scientific method whereas the people looking for bigfoot are not.
That is why one group is generating successes starting from the same type of clue while the other just has theories and hoaxes.
"The theory that scientists propose strongly support the idea of a native North American ape is the real and accepted evidence of the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that the scientists, yes, _real_ scientists, have been going on."
Where is the evidence to support this "theory"? It is "propose[d] strongly". Is there anything more than someone's opinion?
No, there is nothing more than someone's opinion. Yet you claim that such people are "_real_ scientists".
That is known as an "appeal to authority" which is something called a "logical fallacy".
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticis
You continue that same fallacy in your claim "Most subatomic physicists and cosmologists will also agree that faith plays quite a large role in their respective fields."
You are also incorrect in "Galileo's Mistake".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1
That is a book on why religion, "GOD", should be as important as the scientific method. That has nothing to do with whether a hypothesis will be considered true forever. That is why theories are reproduced by peers. That is why theories evolve as our ability to measure increases.
Bigfoot does not exist and no amount of money spent will ever capture a creature that does not exist. Therefore, you will always be correct in stating that not enough money has been spent to capture one. When someone can spend more than an infinite amount of money on the search, a bigfoot will be captured.
Your proof of this is that other animals have been found by spending less than an infinite amount of money on the search for them.
Therefore, "GOD" is as valid as the scientific method as stated in "Galileo's Mistake".
I say that there is no bigfoot and because of that one will never be captured and that the "scientists" theorizing about how he got here and why no one can capture one are engaging in nothing more than mental masturbation.
I'm sure you'll bring up 'Gigantopithecus blacki' again, even though none of them have been captured in the Pacific Northwest. Like I said, mental masturbation.
There are lots of theories to explain what we can detect, but it all starts with us being able to detect it. We have detected the interaction of sub-atomic particles.
Now you're going off about "GOD". That usually happens when people run out of facts. No, faith does not have a place in the scientific method. Reproducability is all that matters. The theories are tested and peer-reviewed and those tests are reproduced by others to verify them.
Hoaxes do not make a theory invalid.
But an untested or untestable theory is mental masturbation.
The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed.
All your "theories" about bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster are mental masturbation.
It is your faith that makes them seem like more to you.
It's always nice to know where you're coming from.
I suppose nuclear power is "faith" to you?
Or lunar landings?
But the belief that large animals can exist in regions of the lower 48 states without leaving any physical evidence is "science" to you?
Loch Ness? Another example of lots of belief and very little science. But with lots of theories about why each particular belief could be real. But no physical evidence.
So, you claim it is a matter of funding.
Yet the examples you've given where real creatures have been found have been accomplished with far less funding simply by using far better science.
As for your question of "WHO" has done the searching, please check the records pertaining to Tom Swift, millionaire, who financed several searches for unknown creatures that actually found those creatures. Yet when his funding for bigfoot did not produce anything. That is a single example for you to start with.
You final sentence shows your lack of knowledge of the scientific method. Historians are not bound by the scientific method. Anthropologists and paleontologists start with actual evidence.
Bigfoot fans don't restrict themselves to actual evidence. They start with a desire to have bigfoot be real and then build "theories" about why it could be so. But their "theories" are not testable in any way. They just end up with more "theories" explaining why their previous "theories" cannot be tested.
You are somewhat confused as to the nature of the "scientific method".
Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless.
There are no creatures that have been captured nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such. Despite all of the technology used in the searching for such.
All of the theories about bigfoot lack one critical element. The explanation of why none have been captured or their skeletons found.
Until one is captured or a skeleton found, those theories are all mental masturbation.
As is the "science" associated with it.
The people gambling on the stock will do so no matter what. It is just a gamble.
But, our public record of the history and derivation of the code can be used to defeat SCO in court. We can do more research than IBM's legal team because we have more people with more experience with the code and the history.
SCO's executives will make money on the pump-n-dump scheme. Until the suit comes to court, there's really nothing that can stop them. After the judgement, we'll see what the SEC does.
SCO has a legal team.
SCO had a semi-public presentation with code snippets.
Why didn't the legal team go over the code snippets like you say?
Instead, other people looked at the leaked code and did the research. SCO wasn't doing what you say they should have be doing with the snippets and legal team they had.
Like the article said, SCO doesn't know the origin of the code and seems incapable of find the origin with their current and claimed resources.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/28233.html
They suck.
Back during the Oil Embargo to conserve fuel?
Not for reasons of public safety?
At least 5 books every month.
I prefer hardbacks because they last longer and they look nicer on my shelves, but mostly I get paperbacks because that's what's available.
And I have not purchased a Star Trek book in over 20 years. Nor have I ever purchased a Star Wars book. But I did have a very nice collection of Perry Rhodan books when I was younger.
If you go to the bookstore, you'll see
- wrote
Callahan's something-or-other
Callahan's something-else
Callahan's other-thing
Callahan's thing
Callahan's some-other-thing
Callahan's 1
Callahan's 2
Callahan's 3
Callahan's 4
Something-else-you-wrote
Some-other-thing-you
Maybe-something-else-you-wrote
In my opinion, the only decent Callahan book was the first one.
So someone is most likely to pick up one of your less-than-wonderful books and form an opinion based upon that. That's just the way the books are arranged at the bookstore.
The same with Piers Anthony. You're more likely to pick up one of his crappy works rather than one of his decent books just because the crappy ones will be arranged to take up the most visual space on the shelf.