It doesn't take full advantage of SMP, but on my dual 233 system it uses only one processor, leaving the other for everything else.
When I run GNOME with the pager, I can minimize CTP or run it on one virtual desktop so I can leave it running while I do other things. (Other things that don't require sound that is...)
Do THAT under Windows.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
A couple of Loki developers hang out on EFnet #linuxctp. "Sloukan" told me that Lokigames intends on releasing the parts of the code not covered under the Activision NDA. What that leaves is some Loki-developed MPEG code, but it's still pretty cool.
I submitted this story to Slashdot, but I guess the trained mammals didn't think it was news. (shrug).
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
To say that MS is not a monopoly because it has (small) competitors in some markets is a cute argument...
According to US antitrust law, more than 50% marketshare in a given market is sufficient to call a company a monopoly. Standard Oil was broken up when it had only about 50-60% market share.
Reason being is that you don't need 100% market share to be capable of bending the market to your will.
Rockefeller had exclusive agreements with railroads so S.O. got a kickback even when it was his competitor's oil that was being transported, just like Microsoft gets paid by OEM's even if a PC is sold with a competing OS, or with no OS at all. 50% market share is more than ample power to negotiate such agreements, because the monopoly can easily kill the OEM or the railroad by refusing to do business with them.
So to say that MS (or Intel, or IBM) is not a monopoly is merely quibbling over semantics and dictionary definitions. Antitrust law exists to protect against anticompetitive exclusive agreements.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
This indictment may not apply to Compaq in this case, but OSS doesn't mean crap if nobody around is willing to stand up and challenge violations of the GPL and LGPL.
Apple, I'm looking at you.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The following is a translation of last night's speech by the Prime Minister of Japan, explaining why the Japanese air force bombed military bases and command-and-control installations in the American Southwest:
"My fellow citizens: Today our armed forces joined our allies in the Pacific Rim Organization for National Treaty Observance in air strikes against American forces responsible for the brutality in New Mexico. We have acted with resolve for several reasons. We act to protect thousands of innocent people in New Mexico from a mounting military offensive by the `border patrol.' We act to defuse a powder keg at the heart of North America that has exploded twice before in the last century and a half with catastrophic results, when the US invaded Mexico in 1846 and 1916. We act to stand united with our allies for peace. By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace. Tonight I want to speak with you about the tragedy in New Mexico and why it matters to Japan that we work with our allies to end it.
First, let me explain what it is we are responding to. New Mexico is a state of the United States, in the middle of southwestern North America, about 1500 miles west of Cuba -- that's less than the distance from Hokkaido to Okinawa -- and only about 1000 miles north of Mexico City. Its people are mostly ethnic Latino and mostly Catholic.
In recent years America's leader, Bill Clinton, the same leader who started the wars in Iraq and Colombia and attacked Sudan and Afghanistan in the last decade, increased the authority of the federal secret police, the `INS'; Mexicans are denied their right to speak their language, run their schools, shape their daily lives. For years, Latinos struggled peacefully to get their rights back. When President Clinton sent his troops and police to crush them, the struggle grew violent.
The American leaders refuse even to discuss key elements of the Japanese peace proposal. America has stationed Marines along the border in preparation for a major offensive. We've seen innocent people taken from their homes, forced to kneel in the dirt and sprayed with bullets; Mexican men dragged from their families, fathers and sons together lined up and shot in cold blood. This is not war in the traditional sense. It is an attack by armored vehicles and high-tech weapons on a largely defenseless people whose leaders speak only of peace.
Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to Japan's national interests. Take a look at the map. New Mexico is a small place, but it sits on a major fault line between North America, Latin America, and the Pacific, at the meeting place of Catholicism and both the liberal and evangelical branches of Protestantism. To the South are our allies, Peru (whose president is of Japanese descent) and Venezuela (which produces oil); to the north our increasingly important trading partner, Canada. And all around New Mexico there are other states struggling with their own economic and political challenges, states that could be overwhelmed by a large new wave of refugees from New Mexico -- California, Texas, Arizona. All the ingredients for a major war are there: Ancient grievances, struggling democracies, and in the center of it all, a president in America of highly questionable personal character who has done nothing since the Cold War ended but start new wars and pour gasoline on the flames of ethnic and religious division.
In neighboring Guatemala President Clinton recently acknowledged that American support for torture and murder cost 200,000 lives. Earlier, World War II engulfed the Pacific. In both wars, the world was slow to recognize the dangers, and Japan held back from entering these conflicts. Just imagine if leaders back then had acted wisely and early enough. How many lives could have been saved? How many Japanese would not have had to die?
We learned some of the same lessons in Nicaragua and El Salvador a decade ago. The world did not act early enough to stop those wars, either. And let's not forget what happened: Innocent people herded into concentration camps; children gunned down by snipers on their way to school; soccer fields and parks turned into cemeteries; a quarter of a million people killed not because of anything they had done but because of who they were. Two million Central Americans became refugees.
This was genocide in the heart of the Americas, not in 1945 but in 1985, not in some grainy newsreel from our parents' and grandparents' time, but in our own time, testing our humanity and our resolve.
At the time, many people believed nothing could be done to end the bloodshed in Central America, They said, `Well, that's just the way those people in the Americas are.' But when we and our allies in the UN joined with courageous Central Americans to stand up to the aggressors, we helped end the wars. We learned that in the Americas inaction in the face of brutality simply invites more brutality, but firmness can stop armies and save lives. We must apply that lesson in New Mexico, before what happened in Central America happens there too.
Today we and our PRONTO allies agreed to do what we must do to restore the peace. Our mission is clear: to demonstrate the seriousness of PRONTO's purpose so that the American leaders understand the imperative of reversing course; to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in New Mexico; and if necessary, to seriously damage the American military's capacity to harm the people of New Mexico. In short, if President Clinton will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.
Now, I want to be clear with you, there are risks in this military action -- risk to our pilots and the people on the ground. America's air defenses are strong. It could decide to intensify its assault on New Mexico or to seek to harm us or our allies elsewhere. If it does, we will deliver a forceful response. Hopefully Mr. Clinton will realize his present course is self-destructive and unsustainable.
If he decides to accept our peace proposal and demilitarize New Mexico, PRONTO has agreed to help to implement it with a peacekeeping force. If PRONTO is invited to do so, our troops should take part in that mission to keep the peace. But I do not intend to put our troops in New Mexico to fight a war.
Do our interests in New Mexico justify the dangers to our armed forces? I thought long and hard about that question. I am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting -- dangers to defenseless people and to our national interests. If we and our allies were to allow this war to continue with no response, President Clinton would read our hesitation as a license to kill. There would be many more massacres -- tens of thousands more refugees, more victims crying out for revenge. Right now our firmness is the only hope the people of New Mexico have to be able to live in their own country without having to fear for their own lives.
Imagine what would happen if we and our allies decided just to look the other way as these people were massacred on PRONTO's doorstep. That would discredit PRONTO, the cornerstone on which our Pacific security rests.
We must also remember that this is a conflict with no natural national boundaries. Let me ask you to look again at a map. The arrows show the movement of refugees -- north, east, and west. Already this movement is threatening the unstable democracy in Texas, which has its own Mexican minority and an Indian minority. Already American forces have made forays into Mexico, from which New Mexicans have drawn support. Mexico has a Mayan minority. Let a fire burn here in this area, and the flames will spread. Eventually key Japanese allies could be drawn into a wider conflict, which we would be forced to confront later only at far greater risk and greater cost.
I have a responsibility as Prime Minister to deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to out national interests. Japan has a responsibility to stand with our allies when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom, and stability in North America. That is what we are doing in New Mexico. If we have learned anything form the century drawing to a close, it is that if Japan is going to be prosperous and secure we need a North America that is prosperous, secure, united, and free. We need a North America that is coming together, not falling apart, a North America that shares our values and shares the burdens of leadership. That is the foundation on which the security or our children will depend. That is why I have supported NAFTA and the economic unification of North America.
Now, what are the challenges to that vision of a peaceful, secure, united, stable North America? The challenge of strengthening a three-way partnership with the EU, that despite our disagreements is a constructive partner in the work of building peace. The challenge of resolving the tension between Latin and indigenous peoples, and building bridges with the Christian world. And finally the challenge of ending instability in the United States so that these bitter ethnic problems are resolved by the force of argument, not the force of arms, so that future generations of Japanese do not have to cross the Pacific to fight another terrible war. It is this challenge that we and our allies are facing in New Mexico. That is why we have acted now, because we care about saving innocent lives, because we have an interest in avoiding an even crueler and costlier war, and because our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free North America.
Our thoughts and prayers tonight must be with the men and women of our armed forces who are undertaking this mission for the sake of our values and our children's future. May God bless them, and may God bless Japan."
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The pipeline goes through Turkey and has to get to Western Europe. I couldn't tell you where the eastern end goes exactly, but around the Black Sea would route you through Russia.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
We overthrow central american governments so that United Fruit (and others) could move in. We installed the Shah in Iran to secure 50% of the British oil concessions. We supported Saddam, because he gave us oil too. When he tried to take the Kuwaiti oil fields, our favored friend turned into the Butcher of Baghdad. We supported and financed the Indonesian takeover of East Timor in exchange for yet more oil drilling rights. The list goes on.
But hey, the price of oil stays just low enough, and we all get to drive around our SUV's.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The overland Caspian Sea pipeline either has to go through Yugoslavia, or through Russia. Neither zone is under US or NATO control. Since NATO troops in Russia is out of the question, they have to go into Yugoslavia. NATO demanded Milosevic allow troops on the ground and would not back down on that point. Neither will Milosevic, so NATO will insert itself forcably.
Don't just believe me though. If you believe what the TV says, this will be a limited war and ground troops will not be considered. I predict however that there *will* be troops on the ground no matter what happens in Yugoslavia.
I give it a couple weeks.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Maybe I'm paranoid, or maybe my trust in the executive branch is completely shattered, but I think those boys were set up to be captured.
If I were Clinton, and I knew I had to get ground troops in there at all costs, I'd want to make it look like I was forced to do it as much as possible.
They carefully selected the men by state too. From TX, CA, and MI. 3 large, important, populous and yet diverse states.
Why were they in harms way? Where was the rest of their unit? Did the Serbs just climb out of the sewer? Very fishy.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
genocide is the systematic eradication of an entire ethnic group. Only 2000 KLA combatants have died to my knowledge. Bad yes, murder yes, but hardly genocide.
The state dept. likes to use strong words like genocide because it sounds more serious than murder or war.
Oh, and I am getting news, I just run it through my bullshit filter before I repeat it.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
We don't give two shakes about the Kosovo Albanians and never have. If the US was at all concerned about humanitarian causes, I can name about 20 situations around the world where the situation is much worse.
This intervention, like all US interventions, is about money and power and nothing else. All the noise about humanitarianism/anticommunism/antiterrorism is just that. Noise.
Judging from the ammount of support on/. here, the propaganda seems to be pretty effective.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The original poster is 100% correct. There is no genocide going on, it's a civil war. A civil war that is a lot more bloodless than our own 130 years ago I might add.
The real crimes are:
1) Demanding that Milosevic allow NATO troops in Kossovo. Not UN peacekeepers, NATO troops. Milosevic rejected this provision and only this provision.
2) By provoking a conflict, NATO caused all human rights monitors and journalists to be (understandably) ejected. The NATO commander in the region said this would result in a stepping up of the violence against civilians, as did the director of the CIA. This really makes the refugee problem in part NATO's doing.
Turn off the TV and use your head. You'll find that real life is not so good guy/bad guy as the state department would have you believe.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
I was just listing the countries we weren't officially at war with, and bombings that violate the UN charter.
Hiroshima is questionable, Nagasaki was certainly a war crime, as was the "finale" (the massive conventional bombing raid against Japan after they surrendered).
As I have gone a bit off-topic, this post is sure to be moderated.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Slashdot Mirror
When I run GNOME with the pager, I can minimize CTP or run it on one virtual desktop so I can leave it running while I do other things. (Other things that don't require sound that is...)
Do THAT under Windows.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
CivCTP spanks AC like a child.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
We will always have Debian though.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
My Email from Lokisoft said I was selected because I have an Alpha box, but that they won't be betatesting an Alpha version 'till later.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
I submitted this story to Slashdot, but I guess the trained mammals didn't think it was news. (shrug).
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
That said, this particular beta has WAY too many crashing bugs for such an ambitious release date.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
According to US antitrust law, more than 50% marketshare in a given market is sufficient to call a company a monopoly. Standard Oil was broken up when it had only about 50-60% market share.
Reason being is that you don't need 100% market share to be capable of bending the market to your will.
Rockefeller had exclusive agreements with railroads so S.O. got a kickback even when it was his competitor's oil that was being transported, just like Microsoft gets paid by OEM's even if a PC is sold with a competing OS, or with no OS at all. 50% market share is more than ample power to negotiate such agreements, because the monopoly can easily kill the OEM or the railroad by refusing to do business with them.
So to say that MS (or Intel, or IBM) is not a monopoly is merely quibbling over semantics and dictionary definitions. Antitrust law exists to protect against anticompetitive exclusive agreements.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Where do you live?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The parallels between the IT industry and international politics become more striking by the day.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Apple, I'm looking at you.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
That's what happens when you shift production to Mexico to take advantage of the low wages and lax fire codes.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The following is a translation of last night's
speech by the Prime Minister of Japan, explaining
why the Japanese air force bombed military bases
and command-and-control installations in the
American Southwest:
"My fellow citizens:
Today our armed forces joined our allies
in the Pacific Rim Organization for National
Treaty Observance in air strikes against American
forces responsible for the brutality in New
Mexico. We have acted with resolve for several reasons.
We act to protect thousands of innocent
people in New Mexico from a mounting military
offensive by the `border patrol.' We act to defuse
a powder keg at the heart of North America that
has exploded twice before in the last century and
a half with catastrophic results, when the US
invaded Mexico in 1846 and 1916. We act to stand
united with our allies for peace. By acting now,
we are upholding our values, protecting our
interests, and advancing the cause of peace.
Tonight I want to speak with you about the
tragedy in New Mexico and why it matters to Japan
that we work with our allies to end it.
First, let me explain what it is we are
responding to. New Mexico is a state of the
United States, in the middle of southwestern North
America, about 1500 miles west of Cuba -- that's
less than the distance from Hokkaido to Okinawa --
and only about 1000 miles north of Mexico City.
Its people are mostly ethnic Latino and mostly
Catholic.
In recent years America's leader, Bill
Clinton, the same leader who started the wars in
Iraq and Colombia and attacked Sudan and
Afghanistan in the last decade, increased the
authority of the federal
secret police, the `INS'; Mexicans are denied
their right to speak their language, run their
schools, shape their daily lives. For years,
Latinos struggled peacefully to get their rights
back. When President Clinton
sent his troops and police to crush them, the
struggle grew violent.
The American leaders refuse even to
discuss key elements of the Japanese peace
proposal. America has stationed Marines along the
border in preparation for a major offensive.
We've seen innocent people taken from their homes,
forced to kneel in the dirt and sprayed with
bullets; Mexican men dragged from their families,
fathers and sons together lined up and shot in
cold blood. This is not war in the traditional
sense. It is an attack by armored vehicles and
high-tech weapons on a largely defenseless people
whose leaders speak only of peace.
Ending this tragedy is a moral
imperative. It is also important to Japan's
national interests. Take a look at the map. New
Mexico is a small place, but it sits on a major
fault line between North America,
Latin America, and the Pacific, at the meeting
place of Catholicism and both the liberal and
evangelical branches of Protestantism. To the
South are our allies, Peru (whose president is of
Japanese descent) and Venezuela (which produces oil); to the north our
increasingly important trading partner, Canada.
And all around New Mexico there are other
states struggling with their own economic and
political challenges, states that could be
overwhelmed by a large new wave of refugees from
New Mexico -- California, Texas, Arizona. All the
ingredients for a major war are there: Ancient
grievances, struggling democracies, and in the
center of it all, a president in America of highly
questionable personal character who has done
nothing since the Cold War ended but start new
wars and pour gasoline on the flames of ethnic and
religious division.
In neighboring Guatemala President Clinton
recently acknowledged that American support for
torture and murder cost 200,000 lives. Earlier,
World War II engulfed the Pacific. In both wars,
the world was slow to recognize the dangers, and
Japan held back from entering these conflicts.
Just imagine if leaders back then had acted wisely
and early enough. How many lives could have been
saved? How many Japanese would not have had to
die?
We learned some of the same lessons in
Nicaragua and El Salvador a decade ago. The
world did not act early enough to stop those wars,
either. And let's not forget what happened:
Innocent people herded into concentration camps;
children gunned down by snipers on their way to
school; soccer fields and parks turned into
cemeteries; a quarter of a million people killed
not because of anything they had done but because
of who they were. Two million Central Americans
became refugees.
This was genocide in the heart of the
Americas, not in 1945 but in 1985, not in some
grainy newsreel from our parents' and
grandparents' time, but in our own time, testing
our humanity and our resolve.
At the time, many people believed nothing
could be done to end the bloodshed in Central
America, They said, `Well, that's just the way
those people in the Americas are.' But when we and
our allies in the UN joined with courageous
Central Americans to stand up to the aggressors,
we helped end the wars. We learned that in the
Americas inaction in the face of brutality simply
invites more brutality, but firmness can stop
armies and save lives. We must apply that lesson
in New Mexico, before what happened in Central
America happens there too.
Today we and our PRONTO allies agreed to
do what we must do to restore the peace. Our
mission is clear: to demonstrate the seriousness
of PRONTO's purpose so that the American leaders
understand the imperative of reversing course; to
deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent
civilians in New Mexico; and if necessary, to
seriously damage the American military's capacity
to harm the people of New Mexico. In short, if
President Clinton will not make peace, we will
limit his ability to make war.
Now, I want to be clear with you, there
are risks in this military action -- risk to our
pilots and the people on the ground. America's
air defenses are strong. It could decide to
intensify its assault on New
Mexico or to seek to harm us or our allies
elsewhere. If it does, we will deliver a forceful
response. Hopefully Mr. Clinton will realize his
present course is self-destructive and
unsustainable.
If he decides to accept our peace proposal
and demilitarize New Mexico, PRONTO has agreed to
help to implement it with a peacekeeping force.
If PRONTO is invited to do so, our troops should
take part in that mission to keep the peace. But
I do not intend to put our troops in New Mexico to
fight a war.
Do our interests in New Mexico justify the
dangers to our armed forces? I thought long and
hard about that question. I am convinced that the
dangers of acting are far outweighed by the
dangers of not acting --
dangers to defenseless people and to our national
interests. If we and our allies were to allow
this war to continue with no response, President
Clinton would read our hesitation as a license to
kill. There would be many more massacres -- tens of thousands more
refugees, more victims crying out for revenge.
Right now our firmness is the only hope the people
of New Mexico have to be able to live in their own
country without having to fear for their own
lives.
Imagine what would happen if we and our
allies decided just to look the other way as these
people were massacred on PRONTO's doorstep. That
would discredit PRONTO, the cornerstone on which
our Pacific security rests.
We must also remember that this is a
conflict with no natural national boundaries. Let
me ask you to look again at a map. The arrows
show the movement of refugees -- north, east, and
west. Already this
movement is threatening the unstable democracy in
Texas, which has its own Mexican minority and an
Indian minority. Already American forces have
made forays into Mexico, from which New Mexicans
have drawn support. Mexico has a Mayan minority.
Let a fire burn here in this area, and the flames
will spread. Eventually key Japanese allies could
be drawn into a wider conflict, which we would be
forced to confront later only at far greater risk
and greater cost.
I have a responsibility as Prime Minister
to deal with problems such as this before they do
permanent harm to out national interests. Japan
has a responsibility to stand with our allies when
they are trying to save innocent lives and
preserve peace, freedom, and stability in North
America. That is what we are doing in New Mexico.
If we have learned anything form the
century drawing to a close, it is that if Japan is
going to be prosperous and secure we need a North
America that is prosperous, secure, united, and
free. We need a North America that is coming
together, not falling apart, a North America that
shares our values and shares the burdens of
leadership. That is the foundation on which the
security or our children will depend. That is why
I have supported NAFTA and the economic
unification of North America.
Now, what are the challenges to that
vision of a peaceful, secure, united, stable North
America? The challenge of strengthening a
three-way partnership with the EU, that despite
our disagreements is a constructive partner in the
work of building peace. The challenge of
resolving the tension between Latin and indigenous
peoples, and building bridges with the Christian
world. And finally the challenge of ending
instability in the United States so that these
bitter ethnic problems are resolved by the force
of argument, not the force of arms, so that future
generations of Japanese do not have to cross the
Pacific to fight another terrible war. It is this
challenge that we and our allies are facing in New
Mexico. That is why we have acted now, because we
care about saving innocent lives, because we have
an interest in avoiding an even crueler and
costlier war, and because our children need and
deserve a peaceful, stable, free North America.
Our thoughts and prayers tonight must be
with the men and women of our armed forces who are
undertaking this mission for the sake of our
values and our children's future. May God bless
them, and may God bless Japan."
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The pipeline goes through Turkey and has to get to Western Europe. I couldn't tell you where the eastern end goes exactly, but around the Black Sea would route you through Russia.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
We overthrow central american governments so that United Fruit (and others) could move in. We installed the Shah in Iran to secure 50% of the British oil concessions. We supported Saddam, because he gave us oil too. When he tried to take the Kuwaiti oil fields, our favored friend turned into the Butcher of Baghdad. We supported and financed the Indonesian takeover of East Timor in exchange for yet more oil drilling rights. The list goes on.
But hey, the price of oil stays just low enough, and we all get to drive around our SUV's.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The overland Caspian Sea pipeline either has to go through Yugoslavia, or through Russia. Neither zone is under US or NATO control. Since NATO troops in Russia is out of the question, they have to go into Yugoslavia. NATO demanded Milosevic allow troops on the ground and would not back down on that point. Neither will Milosevic, so NATO will insert itself forcably.
Don't just believe me though. If you believe what the TV says, this will be a limited war and ground troops will not be considered. I predict however that there *will* be troops on the ground no matter what happens in Yugoslavia.
I give it a couple weeks.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
If I were Clinton, and I knew I had to get ground troops in there at all costs, I'd want to make it look like I was forced to do it as much as possible.
They carefully selected the men by state too. From TX, CA, and MI. 3 large, important, populous and yet diverse states.
Why were they in harms way? Where was the rest of their unit? Did the Serbs just climb out of the sewer? Very fishy.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
It was really hard to find those numbers too. They don't print them in the paper.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The state dept. likes to use strong words like genocide because it sounds more serious than murder or war.
Oh, and I am getting news, I just run it through my bullshit filter before I repeat it.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Chechnya is way way East.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
I don't know the circumstances, I'm merely quoting Chomsky (again). I got it from www.zmag.org
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
This intervention, like all US interventions, is about money and power and nothing else. All the noise about humanitarianism/anticommunism/antiterrorism is just that. Noise.
Judging from the ammount of support on /. here, the propaganda seems to be pretty effective.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
If the Warsaw Pact nationa demanded that Russian soldiers be stationed in LA to prevent another riot, what do you think the US's response would be?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The original poster is 100% correct. There is no genocide going on, it's a civil war. A civil war that is a lot more bloodless than our own 130 years ago I might add.
The real crimes are:
1) Demanding that Milosevic allow NATO troops in Kossovo. Not UN peacekeepers, NATO troops. Milosevic rejected this provision and only this provision.
2) By provoking a conflict, NATO caused all human rights monitors and journalists to be (understandably) ejected. The NATO commander in the region said this would result in a stepping up of the violence against civilians, as did the director of the CIA. This really makes the refugee problem in part NATO's doing.
Turn off the TV and use your head. You'll find that real life is not so good guy/bad guy as the state department would have you believe.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Hiroshima is questionable, Nagasaki was certainly a war crime, as was the "finale" (the massive conventional bombing raid against Japan after they surrendered).
As I have gone a bit off-topic, this post is sure to be moderated.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
General Electric
Lockheed
Boeing
Exxon/Mobil
Just off the top of my head.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.