I pretty much disagree with the whole premise.
"Good" engineering and invention come from building on the prevailing framework, lest there be people unfamiliar with the "shoulders of giants" quote. What open source does for "creativity" is provide a "prevailing framework" for free and allow people with fewer resources to compete on a level never before possible.
Linux may be a polished version of an antique idea, but some ideas survive because they "stand the test of time." The UNIX design has stood the test of time, coming from MULTICS, it represents some of the product of some of the best analysis of the subject of operating systems.
Using a well tested "great" design is usually better than coming up with something new. It is always only been when what exists does not work does something new come into existence. Currently, the UNIX type computer OS model is surviving because something new has not proved to be better.
The wheel was a great design, it is still the leading device used to reduce the effects of friction in the motion of objects. The "arch" is still the leading design in efficiently distributing weight of suspended structures. The transistor is still the building blocks of computers (embedded in ICs of course), the list goes on.
Using the old technology that stands the test of time can be creative. Using it in new ways *is* creative. Creating *new* for the sake of new isn't always creative, sometimes its called capitalism or stupid. (Did someone save Vista?)
And ignoring that issue, I'm guessing that it would still be illegal for Microsoft to copy that stuff, it just wouldn't be illegal for the Antiguans to sell it to them.
I'm not sure I agree because Antigua now has the right to take copyrighted works from the U.S.A. That right must be worth something on the world stage or it is merely lip service from the WTO.
If I buy a DVD in Antiqua and bring it back to the U.S.A. I have been a assigned a license, not by the MPAA, but by some entity in Antigua. The entity in Antigua has the legal right to define what ever terms it wants.
Now, a forward thinking individual in Antigua *could* take all the MPAA and RIAA, up to 21 million per year, and release them into the global "public domain" under their new license.
A treaty like the WTO is not an "abandonment of sovereignty," it is an agreement that basically states: "We agree to these rules and will abide by them for the benefits created by a large community of nations abiding by them as a whole. If someone in this group does not live up to their agreements, we also support sanctions.
The U.S.A. agreed to abide by the rules and has called for sanctions on other countries based on the rules. The fact that the U.S.A. a HUGE proponent of WTO has chosen to ignore a treaty that is supposed to become the "law of the land" when it is ratified is troubling. IMHO, I think the WTO should have the power to impose "punitive" sanctions (not merely economic damages) because entities like the U.S. can basically step all over the smaller signatories of the treaty.
While I understand your frustration coming from a old-time computing background. I think physical disks and network shares are "different" with respect to the OS.
In some ways, it is a fairly obvious artifact of the notion of "disks." In the old floppy world you NEEDED to differentiate file and location so that the use could change the disks as needed. When hard disks became popular, floppies were still very much used. The idea of "A:" and "B:" and "C:" defined where still necessary because hard disks were still kind of small.
Over time it just became second nature to think of external devices as different.
There is still a need to differentiate files based on their source. USB drives, internal hard disks, floppies if you can find them, and yes network drives, all have different characteristics and there needs to be a way to intuitively inform user's of these differences.
I think the UNIX paradigm of a uniform directory tree with file systems mount to it works best.The UNC form of "\\location\share\filepath\filename.ext" is OK, but exists outside the Windows "C:\filepath\filename.ext" convention.
As for OS representation of locking and access, yes that should be in the OS above the file system layer.
Microsoft should be a little more careful in asking the FTC to enforce monopoly laws. I mean, come on now! If *anyone* should be broken apart it is Microsoft. Microsoft currently enjoys a U.S. "justice" department that is so pro-business that it refuses to enforce the laws that stand and has dropped action in progress.
If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.
Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?
The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.
Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.
I have been a squirrel mail user for some time, and I use it on my site as well as sites I set up. My current 9-5 job uses outlook, what a disaster!! Outlook Web Mail just sucks.
Anyone been using it for a while without any problems?
I use it on my site and install it for customers. You won't build a "hotmail" with it, and a rich user client like Thunderbird is almost always a better choice for users, but for those who need web access to their email, it is absolutely great.
I think 50 years is, well, kind of short sighed. If you look at sites like "realdoll" (you add the com and www), and the recent work done in facial expression on robots, all you need to do is add an erotic eliza program, good speech synthesizer, and a pheromone dispenser and the guys will be in love.
Sorry, ladies, robots ain't fixing your car or computer for a while, so you'll have to find a way to pry a guy away from his perfect robot girl.
It's a fact that there was a link between bin Laden and Saddam.
Sorry, it is not a fact. It is absolutely a fabrication. Saddam had as much to lose from Al Qaeda as anyone else. He may have been a dictator, but up until recently, he was an ally of the U.S. and western countries and has a secular (non-muslem) government.
The fact that you believe that there is a link, is a sad state on how effective the propaganda was.
I'm on the fence here. Does technology make rewriting history easier or more difficult?
Sure, one can point to wikipedia being changed, but again, one *can* point to wikipedia being changed.
History has always been at the mercy of those in power. Sure you can argue abut the persistence of flattened dead trees and ink, but whole sale book burnings are the 3D equivalent of "rm -rf/"
The skeptical eye we hold for wikipedia is probably more healthy than a reverent eye for commercial encyclopedias. At least *we* all have a chance of correcting and detecting propaganda *and* we all respect and understand that wikipedia is always from a point of view. Like it or not, Britanica and others also have a point of view, and while they try to hide it, none the less it exists.
Statistically, wikipedia is just as accurate as the likes of Britanica, but wiki being what it is, we know not to trust it 100% without some verification.
I guess, the age old problem of "truth" being hard to find continues in the 21st century because the age old problem of people wanting to bend truth to their ideology continues into the 21st century.
It would be *really* cool to save whole copies of wikipedia every year and track the changes over time.
It took a while but I suspected that someone would post that nonsense.
How does not specifying a particular format destroy freedom?
It isn't merely a "particular format" it is a "free" and "open" format which allows people to freely exchange data. Anything less is a reduction in freedom.
Overall, your post sounds like doublespeak or propaganda - "Up is down", "freedom is restriction", that kind of thing.
Only if you neglect to consider that the preservation of "freedom" can only be achieved by the balance of freedoms. For example, it is necessary to eliminate the freedom to hold slaves to have freedom. In this example, it is necessary to remove proprietary technology from a public specification to preserve the freedom to implement it and the freedom to use it.
This is exactly the sort of thing the GNU/Linux, F/OSS people need to be careful of. These are serious matters, and this joker wants to ad-hominem RMS in an attempt to minimize the impact of his statements. Note, no refutation of fact, merely insults, childish ones at that.
Yea, maybe RMS's appearance is, lacking a better phrase, unorthodox, but his words and actions are the issues here. Stop being a child and focus on the subject, or is it your job to distract from the subject?
I am reminded of Henry Kissinger's famous quote: "Even a paranoid has some real enemies."
I appreciate RMS and his views. He is a pragmatic alarmist, he is playing the chess game that is computers several moves ahead of most people. That's why so many take his statements with a grain of salt, they don't see he has been "right," consistently, for over two decades, often years before the first real signs begin to show.
GNU/Linux and F/OSS have enemies. It is an undeniable fact. There are people working against us. One need only hop over to groklaw and see the black hand of Microsoft (and greed of course) guiding that whole thing. So, maybe we are paranoid, but even paranoids have real enemies.
I am really starting to believe that GNOME is a trojan horse, or at least some aspects of it. I don't trust Miguel de Icaza, he's either incompetent of a shill and he's potentially dangerous.
I am so sick and tired of people saying silly things like "Its only an operating system," or "use what's best," or other justifications for taking crap that we MUST STAND UP AGAINST.
Every little one of these things matters, they all add up like links in a chain. There are people actively trying to destroy freedom and they are doing it slowly with incremental steps. This is just another step. I'm sorry, if you can't be bothered to take an active participation in protesting and exploring alternate systems, then you are letting everyone down. You know the expression: "No one snow flake in an avalanche feels any responsibility."
The *big* picture is democracy itself. Once the information is controlled, the people are controlled. Make no mistake, people are actively working against the free exchange of information. While most are just working for their own self interests, there are others capitalizing on these actions in more nefarious ways.
I know you think this is tin foil hat stuff, but look around, look at what's happening. We have to work against these sorts of things because rust never sleeps.
Microsoft plays a LARGE role in the big vendor's product development. Vendors like Dell, Seagate, Western Digital, nVidia, etc. all get new feature information and are pushed/bribed/coerced into supporting "new standards" that break old functionality. Microsoft can easily push a fix these days before the products are released.
The vendors think this rocks because they get to have a leg up on competition and have a new device for a period of time without them. Microsoft likes it because it makes everyone else look "incompatible." You know, why risk being "incompatible," life is just easier if you use Windows. Right? NOT!
For, well what its worth, even having to deal with the occasional crap like this, Linux, Macintosh, and hell, even FreeBSD are more "productive" systems in the sense of "real" usability: consistency, reliability, and availability of most common applications.
Think about it, most IT work these days isn't critical thinking and analytical work, but merely the memorization of the latest trends and APIs, and re-writing the same old crap in a new job using a different set of tools. So, monkeys are going to have a leg up. They aren't very much more ill behaved than web designers, don't smell as bad, dress about the same, and they have similar toiletry habits.
Under US law anything inherently copyrightable is automatically copyright protected.
No one disputes this statement.
the creator retains copyright and can grant or deny rights to use/modify for private/commercial/on-the-moon-only or whatever rights he chooses.
Absolutely 100% correct.
At issue is the "intent" of the author when he posts the code to a public forum with no disclaimer. It is all a matter of context and intent. If I post code to a public forum whose intention is to help software programmers, it can be "assumed" by a "reasonable man" that I give permission to use that example code. It is "obvious" that this is the intention of the posting of that code, i.e. "this is how you do it..."
Now, copyright law is a squirrelly area of law. Things that have been previously been considered legal have been found to be illegal when argued by skillful lawyers. *I* argue that is is impossible to know with 100% certainty what is and what is not infringement in the current intellectual property environment (weasel fest), but mine is as valid an argument as one could make and is based on actual case law.
Posting a picture on the web implies that people may look at it.
Posting a sample of source code in a public forum implies people may use it.
The big problem with copyright is that these questions are not settled. We are both right with regards to general case law, but in this specific example, while I think I am more right with regard to this particular topic, the judge is a wildcard.
I did not say there was no copyright protection or there was no copyright of the work.
If the forum does not have any copyright rules (as I mentioned) then the author's posting of the code in an open and public forum intended as an example without any explicit limitations would be considered by a "reasonable man" to be intended to be used by any readers for any purpose.
"Copyright" grants rights and protections to people who create, but it also conveys rights to the general public to use "published works." The act of publishing a work, i.e. posting to a forum in this case, implies a grant of a number of rights. If you don't limit those rights at time of publication, then you lose them.
If the original author posted the code to a forum as an example, without disclaiming any assumed or implied rights, then you are free to use it. The mere act of publicly posting the example is clearly an act that grants permission to use, however, you should look at the forum copyright policy as that may have further limitations.
It seems to all boil down to software copyright cartels using civil laws and "lock-in" to create monopoly prisons from which it is nearly impossible to extricate yourself.
If we *truly* want to be free of these criminal organizations we need to create viable competition against them. OpenOffice is a good start, FireFox, etc.
Gimp needs improvement to even be mentioned with Photoshop, that being said, most people who use Photoshop could use Gimp if its UI were improved and features be more intuitive.
Did anyone stop to think that they may have intentionally done this? (1) To take real science and slap a creationist's context on it and (2) any legal action taken is publicity and an attempt to "silence" "alternative" "theories" of the origin of man.
Slashdot Mirror
I pretty much disagree with the whole premise. "Good" engineering and invention come from building on the prevailing framework, lest there be people unfamiliar with the "shoulders of giants" quote. What open source does for "creativity" is provide a "prevailing framework" for free and allow people with fewer resources to compete on a level never before possible. Linux may be a polished version of an antique idea, but some ideas survive because they "stand the test of time." The UNIX design has stood the test of time, coming from MULTICS, it represents some of the product of some of the best analysis of the subject of operating systems. Using a well tested "great" design is usually better than coming up with something new. It is always only been when what exists does not work does something new come into existence. Currently, the UNIX type computer OS model is surviving because something new has not proved to be better. The wheel was a great design, it is still the leading device used to reduce the effects of friction in the motion of objects. The "arch" is still the leading design in efficiently distributing weight of suspended structures. The transistor is still the building blocks of computers (embedded in ICs of course), the list goes on. Using the old technology that stands the test of time can be creative. Using it in new ways *is* creative. Creating *new* for the sake of new isn't always creative, sometimes its called capitalism or stupid. (Did someone save Vista?)
On the other hand, the GPL only exists to weaken copyright in the first place since it wouldn't be necessary without it.
This is patently false, the GPL depends on copyright law to enforce the reciprocity inherent in it.
And ignoring that issue, I'm guessing that it would still be illegal for Microsoft to copy that stuff, it just wouldn't be illegal for the Antiguans to sell it to them.
I'm not sure I agree because Antigua now has the right to take copyrighted works from the U.S.A. That right must be worth something on the world stage or it is merely lip service from the WTO.
If I buy a DVD in Antiqua and bring it back to the U.S.A. I have been a assigned a license, not by the MPAA, but by some entity in Antigua. The entity in Antigua has the legal right to define what ever terms it wants.
Now, a forward thinking individual in Antigua *could* take all the MPAA and RIAA, up to 21 million per year, and release them into the global "public domain" under their new license.
A treaty like the WTO is not an "abandonment of sovereignty," it is an agreement that basically states: "We agree to these rules and will abide by them for the benefits created by a large community of nations abiding by them as a whole. If someone in this group does not live up to their agreements, we also support sanctions.
The U.S.A. agreed to abide by the rules and has called for sanctions on other countries based on the rules. The fact that the U.S.A. a HUGE proponent of WTO has chosen to ignore a treaty that is supposed to become the "law of the land" when it is ratified is troubling. IMHO, I think the WTO should have the power to impose "punitive" sanctions (not merely economic damages) because entities like the U.S. can basically step all over the smaller signatories of the treaty.
Could a company in Antigua take GPL software, strip out the copyrights and then "sell" that newly licensed code to Microsoft?
So, using Antigua, have they found the hole in the GPL they have been looking for?
While I understand your frustration coming from a old-time computing background. I think physical disks and network shares are "different" with respect to the OS.
In some ways, it is a fairly obvious artifact of the notion of "disks." In the old floppy world you NEEDED to differentiate file and location so that the use could change the disks as needed. When hard disks became popular, floppies were still very much used. The idea of "A:" and "B:" and "C:" defined where still necessary because hard disks were still kind of small.
Over time it just became second nature to think of external devices as different.
There is still a need to differentiate files based on their source. USB drives, internal hard disks, floppies if you can find them, and yes network drives, all have different characteristics and there needs to be a way to intuitively inform user's of these differences.
I think the UNIX paradigm of a uniform directory tree with file systems mount to it works best.The UNC form of "\\location\share\filepath\filename.ext" is OK, but exists outside the Windows "C:\filepath\filename.ext" convention.
As for OS representation of locking and access, yes that should be in the OS above the file system layer.
Microsoft should be a little more careful in asking the FTC to enforce monopoly laws. I mean, come on now! If *anyone* should be broken apart it is Microsoft. Microsoft currently enjoys a U.S. "justice" department that is so pro-business that it refuses to enforce the laws that stand and has dropped action in progress.
If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.
Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?
The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.
Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.
I have been a squirrel mail user for some time, and I use it on my site as well as sites I set up. My current 9-5 job uses outlook, what a disaster!! Outlook Web Mail just sucks.
Anyone been using it for a while without any problems?
I use it on my site and install it for customers. You won't build a "hotmail" with it, and a rich user client like Thunderbird is almost always a better choice for users, but for those who need web access to their email, it is absolutely great.
I think 50 years is, well, kind of short sighed. If you look at sites like "realdoll" (you add the com and www), and the recent work done in facial expression on robots, all you need to do is add an erotic eliza program, good speech synthesizer, and a pheromone dispenser and the guys will be in love.
Sorry, ladies, robots ain't fixing your car or computer for a while, so you'll have to find a way to pry a guy away from his perfect robot girl.
It's a fact that there was a link between bin Laden and Saddam. Sorry, it is not a fact. It is absolutely a fabrication. Saddam had as much to lose from Al Qaeda as anyone else. He may have been a dictator, but up until recently, he was an ally of the U.S. and western countries and has a secular (non-muslem) government. The fact that you believe that there is a link, is a sad state on how effective the propaganda was.
I'm on the fence here. Does technology make rewriting history easier or more difficult?
/"
Sure, one can point to wikipedia being changed, but again, one *can* point to wikipedia being changed.
History has always been at the mercy of those in power. Sure you can argue abut the persistence of flattened dead trees and ink, but whole sale book burnings are the 3D equivalent of "rm -rf
The skeptical eye we hold for wikipedia is probably more healthy than a reverent eye for commercial encyclopedias. At least *we* all have a chance of correcting and detecting propaganda *and* we all respect and understand that wikipedia is always from a point of view. Like it or not, Britanica and others also have a point of view, and while they try to hide it, none the less it exists.
Statistically, wikipedia is just as accurate as the likes of Britanica, but wiki being what it is, we know not to trust it 100% without some verification.
I guess, the age old problem of "truth" being hard to find continues in the 21st century because the age old problem of people wanting to bend truth to their ideology continues into the 21st century.
It would be *really* cool to save whole copies of wikipedia every year and track the changes over time.
It took a while but I suspected that someone would post that nonsense.
How does not specifying a particular format destroy freedom?
It isn't merely a "particular format" it is a "free" and "open" format which allows people to freely exchange data. Anything less is a reduction in freedom.
Overall, your post sounds like doublespeak or propaganda - "Up is down", "freedom is restriction", that kind of thing.
Only if you neglect to consider that the preservation of "freedom" can only be achieved by the balance of freedoms. For example, it is necessary to eliminate the freedom to hold slaves to have freedom. In this example, it is necessary to remove proprietary technology from a public specification to preserve the freedom to implement it and the freedom to use it.
This is exactly the sort of thing the GNU/Linux, F/OSS people need to be careful of. These are serious matters, and this joker wants to ad-hominem RMS in an attempt to minimize the impact of his statements. Note, no refutation of fact, merely insults, childish ones at that.
Yea, maybe RMS's appearance is, lacking a better phrase, unorthodox, but his words and actions are the issues here. Stop being a child and focus on the subject, or is it your job to distract from the subject?
I am reminded of Henry Kissinger's famous quote: "Even a paranoid has some real enemies."
I appreciate RMS and his views. He is a pragmatic alarmist, he is playing the chess game that is computers several moves ahead of most people. That's why so many take his statements with a grain of salt, they don't see he has been "right," consistently, for over two decades, often years before the first real signs begin to show.
GNU/Linux and F/OSS have enemies. It is an undeniable fact. There are people working against us. One need only hop over to groklaw and see the black hand of Microsoft (and greed of course) guiding that whole thing. So, maybe we are paranoid, but even paranoids have real enemies.
I am really starting to believe that GNOME is a trojan horse, or at least some aspects of it. I don't trust Miguel de Icaza, he's either incompetent of a shill and he's potentially dangerous.
I am so sick and tired of people saying silly things like "Its only an operating system," or "use what's best," or other justifications for taking crap that we MUST STAND UP AGAINST.
Every little one of these things matters, they all add up like links in a chain. There are people actively trying to destroy freedom and they are doing it slowly with incremental steps. This is just another step. I'm sorry, if you can't be bothered to take an active participation in protesting and exploring alternate systems, then you are letting everyone down. You know the expression: "No one snow flake in an avalanche feels any responsibility."
The *big* picture is democracy itself. Once the information is controlled, the people are controlled. Make no mistake, people are actively working against the free exchange of information. While most are just working for their own self interests, there are others capitalizing on these actions in more nefarious ways.
I know you think this is tin foil hat stuff, but look around, look at what's happening. We have to work against these sorts of things because rust never sleeps.
Microsoft plays a LARGE role in the big vendor's product development. Vendors like Dell, Seagate, Western Digital, nVidia, etc. all get new feature information and are pushed/bribed/coerced into supporting "new standards" that break old functionality. Microsoft can easily push a fix these days before the products are released.
The vendors think this rocks because they get to have a leg up on competition and have a new device for a period of time without them. Microsoft likes it because it makes everyone else look "incompatible." You know, why risk being "incompatible," life is just easier if you use Windows. Right? NOT!
For, well what its worth, even having to deal with the occasional crap like this, Linux, Macintosh, and hell, even FreeBSD are more "productive" systems in the sense of "real" usability: consistency, reliability, and availability of most common applications.
Think about it, most IT work these days isn't critical thinking and analytical work, but merely the memorization of the latest trends and APIs, and re-writing the same old crap in a new job using a different set of tools. So, monkeys are going to have a leg up. They aren't very much more ill behaved than web designers, don't smell as bad, dress about the same, and they have similar toiletry habits.
I wonder if they will be any more manageable?
Sorry, but anyone who believes in religion and god(s) is an idiot.
Under US law anything inherently copyrightable is automatically copyright protected.
No one disputes this statement.
the creator retains copyright and can grant or deny rights to use/modify for private/commercial/on-the-moon-only or whatever rights he chooses.
Absolutely 100% correct.
At issue is the "intent" of the author when he posts the code to a public forum with no disclaimer. It is all a matter of context and intent. If I post code to a public forum whose intention is to help software programmers, it can be "assumed" by a "reasonable man" that I give permission to use that example code. It is "obvious" that this is the intention of the posting of that code, i.e. "this is how you do it..."
Now, copyright law is a squirrelly area of law. Things that have been previously been considered legal have been found to be illegal when argued by skillful lawyers. *I* argue that is is impossible to know with 100% certainty what is and what is not infringement in the current intellectual property environment (weasel fest), but mine is as valid an argument as one could make and is based on actual case law.
You are still confused about "intent"
Posting a picture on the web implies that people may look at it.
Posting a sample of source code in a public forum implies people may use it.
The big problem with copyright is that these questions are not settled. We are both right with regards to general case law, but in this specific example, while I think I am more right with regard to this particular topic, the judge is a wildcard.
You are missing the point.
I did not say there was no copyright protection or there was no copyright of the work.
If the forum does not have any copyright rules (as I mentioned) then the author's posting of the code in an open and public forum intended as an example without any explicit limitations would be considered by a "reasonable man" to be intended to be used by any readers for any purpose.
"Copyright" grants rights and protections to people who create, but it also conveys rights to the general public to use "published works." The act of publishing a work, i.e. posting to a forum in this case, implies a grant of a number of rights. If you don't limit those rights at time of publication, then you lose them.
If the original author posted the code to a forum as an example, without disclaiming any assumed or implied rights, then you are free to use it. The mere act of publicly posting the example is clearly an act that grants permission to use, however, you should look at the forum copyright policy as that may have further limitations.
It seems to all boil down to software copyright cartels using civil laws and "lock-in" to create monopoly prisons from which it is nearly impossible to extricate yourself.
If we *truly* want to be free of these criminal organizations we need to create viable competition against them. OpenOffice is a good start, FireFox, etc.
Gimp needs improvement to even be mentioned with Photoshop, that being said, most people who use Photoshop could use Gimp if its UI were improved and features be more intuitive.
There is a REAL demand for an Autocad competitor.
Did anyone stop to think that they may have intentionally done this? (1) To take real science and slap a creationist's context on it and (2) any legal action taken is publicity and an attempt to "silence" "alternative" "theories" of the origin of man.