yeah, the problem is our dirt is mostly clay-based (here, it's called koleche [co LEE chee]). I could talk to the landlord and have him remove all those damn landscaping rocks in the backyard to make room for a yard and a garden and have him get a half-ton of sand back there but that's pretty expensive and I doubt he'd go for it unless we were committing to stay there a long time.
Right now, we're having enough trouble keeping 2 sunflowers and a houseplant alive.:)
I turn off my workstation and all lights and other gadgets in my office every night.
I use 4x75 A/C in the car (4 windows down at 75mph). Similar for the household.
I turn the shower knobs nearly off when I'm not actually rinsing. This allows me to take 20 minute showers (letting that mmmm good conditioner soak in) while using about half as much water as my son's bath.
I bought several of those fluorescent standard-sized lightbulbs... more expensive, but they last way longer and output just as much light (or more if you buy bigger!).
anyway, and I'm just a poor, young single Dad trying to make it. I'm sure others can add other creative, inexpensive ways to contribute.
hrm... Postfix supports RBL stuff, but maintaining 2 separate mail systems seems a bit absurd... also, depending on your installation size and what you're doing with it, postfix can be slow.
Sec. of State Alexander Haig himself removed Iraq from the list. Clearly Reagan both knew about it and supported it. Also, note the Congressional backlash AGAINST the removal.
I have yet to find a copy of the Export Administration Act of 1979 which defines the terrorism list, so I cannot substantiate your claim that the Reagan administration had no choice but to remove Iraq because of the rules. On the contrary, from the second article listed:
An amendment which Dixon is expected to offer when the bill reaches the Senate floor next year would, according to a Senate aide, "leave room for the State Department to keep Iraq off the list." The department would have to demonstrate that it has "explicit assurances" from the Iraqis that they won't support "international terrorism."
That's because you refuse to see what's in front of your own eyes. Only someone suffering from leftist paranoia or insanity could possible suggest that a document that explicitly says that "the Iraqi leadership must understand that any illegal use of chemcial and/or biological weapons will lead to economic and political sanctions, for which we would seek the broadest possible support from our allies and friends" is instead a secret document authorizing the sale to Iraq of biological weapons.
Your assertion is demonstrably false. EVERYONE knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. But the U.S. sought friendly relations with Iraq ANYWAY. Clearly, this language was tongue-in-cheek... nothing more than leftist P.C. rhetoric.
Furthermore, I've never stated that we sold them bio-weapons. Cluster bombs have been the only issue of actual weapons that I can find. While the United States vs Johnson ruling looks sound, the other Iraqgate investigation, the B.N.L. scandal, decidedly does not look sound.
You lying moron. It is not "third party". Iraq got it's weapons directly from Communist China, the USSR, and France. It didn't arrange those deals through the United States, and the suggestion that the United States would have encouraged, let alone had any input in, arms deals between those countries and Iraq during the 1980s shows what level of stupidity you people will go to in order to try to support your bogus conspiracy theories.
"No it didn't." That's the substance of your argument. Next time try to justify your claim.
What I know is:
there's been some question as to whether the CIA was involved in arranging weapons deals with the Iraqis and until a non-suspicious-looking investigation is conducted, I remain skeptical. That said, United States vs. Johnson decision looks accurate. Contrariwise, the B.N.L. scandal looks awfully suspicious. Thus, I'd like to see a full investigation.
The U.S. definitely sold the Iraqis a ridiculous amount of dual-use technology, including computers, biological agents, radar systems, military-use trucks, etc. due to Reagan, Bush, Haig, et al.'s incompetence and blind faith in Saddam Hussein's graces.
Lastly, from Time on October 26, 1992, "Lone Wolf Or a Pack of Lies?"
After the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, President-elect Bush was faced, according to a State Department study, with deciding whether "to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq's present and potential power in the region and accord it relatively high priority . . . ((with)) steady relations concentrating on trade." Bush eventually, and not without justification, chose the latter course. On Oct. 2, 1989, he signed National Security Directive 26, setting out the ways in which closer ties with Iraq were to be achieved, including "nonlethal forms of military assistance."
Such aid was not supposed to conflict with U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policies, but that did not prevent U.S. firms from shipping "dual-use" equipment (exports that have both civilian and military applications) to Baghdad. Between 1985 and the invasion of Kuwait five years later, the U.S. government approved 771 licenses for dual-use items destined for Iraq, ranging from heavy-duty trucks to radar and communications equipment. Iraq was denied obvious weapon components but could obtain items like computers. And when Henry M. Rowan, chairman of Inductotherm Industries Inc., warned Washington that an Iraqi order to his company might have nuclear military applications, he was told not to worry and to go ahead with the deal.
In case you've forgotten, the President is in charge of his Cabinet and his bureaucracy. If he is unaware of what's going on in Iran-Contra deals, removal of combatants from the list of terrorism-supporting states, etc. you know what that's called? It's called NEGLECT. In a court of law, it's called CRIMINAL NEGLECT. The captain goes down with the ship because it's his ship and it's his responsibility.
The third party deals have not been proved conclusively false in a court of law. The CIA withheld evidence which the Justice Department told them not to reveal. That Hillary Clinton was on the board of one of the NGOs fingered in the investigation is reason enough to raise eyebrows as to the efficacy of the investigation, not to mention the sealing up of Teicher's affidavit and his documentation which he used to back it up. Lastly, Federal prosecutors did NOT claim his documentation was false, they said it was IRRELEVANT to the investigation.
A look at the Iraqi military inventory shows that it's equipment is nearly all Soviet, Eastern Bloc, and Chinese, with a bit of French stuff thrown in.
You're stating exactly the same thing that Teicher says in his document: that, yes, it IS all third party. Thus, it does nothing to add to your argument, which rests entirely on Teicher's date of 1982 and whether or not the fuzzy language used in those NSDs could or could not be construed as allowing the CIA or the Commerce Dept. to assist Iraq, however directly or indirectly.
What's funny is that you continue calling me a leftist, despite the fact that that's a bald-faced lie based entirely on your failure to do any basic research on me. Being critical of government actions or arguing a differing perspective from yours is not "leftist" (whatever "leftist" even means, in your case), it's fundamental to a good society.
Lastly, you've provided no evidence that Teicher is the source for any of the Iraqgate claims prior to the release of the affidavit. You do say that the NSDs bear out your conclusion that no wrongdoing occurred, but I've read them and they appear to me to be far too ambiguous for your generous interpretation of "obvious".
But, as you've failed to justify, none of the sales would have been possible had Reagan not removed Iraq from the list of terrorism-supporting states.
Why don't you link to or write an article based on available sources to justify your claims?
You seem incapable of seeing that multiple sources are used to gather material for these articles... as if one person's recollection -- Teicher's -- were the only justification for these claims. His is one of the most significant claims, but hardly the only one. There are still articles and official documents available online from 1992 and before... long before the 1995 affidavit.
Here's just one example from 1993: http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp
I also find it amusing you fail to connect the Bush administration's advocacy of supporting Iraq in NSD-26 even though he knew Hussein had gassed the Kurds just a year before and the Iranians throughout the entire war. If it were a real issue, they wouldn't have pursued such friendly relations with the Iraqis. I know Teicher wasn't in office then -- I thought you were confusing it because a lot of articles include references to Bush's NSD-26 and Teicher. Also note that Teicher's affidavit says "The NSDD, including even its indentifying number, is classified." It wouldn't surprise me if they had an alternative enumeration scheme for some things.
As far as lists of weapons, even Teicher says "the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq." Thus, our *weapons* would not appear on their inventories, though our biological agents and whatnot still would, due to Iraq's removal from the list of terrorism-supporting states (which allowed the sale of dual-use technology such as anthrax and botulism). The paperwork got filed and approved as a direct result of this.
I've never claimed we armed the Iraqis with U.S. weaponry -- only biological agents and third party deals, including ones documented independently of Teicher's affidavit.
1) You didn't even bother to check your statement on United States vs. Johnson, so either you're a liar or it's not available on the Web where Google can find it (unlikely).
2) You're mixing ad hominem with argument. Stop it.
3) The directive is NSD-26 and that one was under the Bush Sr. administration regarding overall Persian Gulf policy including the normalization of relations with Iraq. Note that that was one year after Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds... I guess we really cared about that, then, ay? There are ALSO a number of Reagan-era NSDDs related to Iraq, unfortunately the NSD system overlaps for each President so it is easy to get confused. I'm sorry that happened to you, but I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.
Reagan: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/
Bush: http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/nsd/
4) I submit to you:
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.htm l
That suggests Rumsfeld also has not read the sole surviving copy of a May 25, 1994, Senate Banking Committee report. In 1985 (five years after the Iraq-Iran war started) and succeeding years, said the report, ''pathogenic (meaning ''disease producing''), toxigenic (meaning ''poisonous'') and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.'' It added: ''These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.''
There's no way that would have happened had Iraq not been removed from the list of terrorism-supporting states.
Oh, I believe in holding individuals accountable for their actions. But, for example, note the huge percentage of elections that were fixed prior to the 1970s; it seems to point to a wider systemic problem of the older U.S. implementations of "democratic republic". I.e., if the public's choice has to use corruption to win, the system is broken, not necessarily just the candidate.
In terms of foreign policy, it's a matter of perception. The U.S. government is perceived as a whole, however skewed that view may be. The U.S. is continuous in history, even if the individual actors are not. So, the system has to take responsibility for its historical actions, even though its current actors may or may not have anything to do with the situation. (We also use this convenience any time we talk about company property, ideas, and actions.)
This is why I think the U.S. government must officially recognize and apologize for its wrongdoings. It doesn't have to be a big "boo hoo" session, just a "we recognize that we've made policy mistakes in the past. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20 and we wish we'd done otherwise, as a nation. However, going forward, we intend to treat all people of the world as worthy of humane treatment, human rights and liberties."
This would be in contrast with the current policy which goes so far as to label U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants", subject to trial by rocket, rather than trial by jury.
oh, I totally agree with that. I just think we have some "legacy API issues" we need to address as we continue our progress toward the ideal democratic republic.
Allies Deliberately Poisoned Iraq Public Water Supply In Gulf War (originally published in Scotland's Sunday Herald)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01. htm
Also, just google around for "gulf war", water, and "geneva convention".
I retract the "500,000 children". Just found an article here that disputes that number: http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
Iraq would never have gotten anthrax, botulism, and toxic insecticides had the Reagan administration not taken Iraq off the list of terrorist states.
You'll note that the article notes in several places the U.S. being unhappy with the use of chemical and biological weapons. I never said the U.S. was happy about it, only that they supported Iraq and its use implicitly.
None of that information relies on Teicher's intrigue. It's documented by other sources, as noted in the article.
Reagan took Iraq off the list of terrorism-supporting states exactly so that we could sell them biological agents (read: dual-use technologies) and other military technology and provide them with CIA intelligence and training for their war against Iran and its Kurdish supporters.
You're correct that we didn't sell them anything that was explicitly a weapon over the counter.
The U.S. military will soon have a stockpile of 77,000 body bags. They received 8,890 black vinyl bags two weeks ago and signed a contract for another 30,000 to be delivered next month. Another 3,500 heavier duty olive-green bags - which are used to retrieve bodies in rugged terrain - have also been ordered.
This is a stark contrast to the 16,000 body bags the Pentagon ordered in 1991 before the Gulf War, which claimed 148 U.S. soldiers, including 35 from "friendly fire." The large number of body bags ordered has fueled speculation that the military is expecting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to use chemical and biological weapons and high casualties from street fighting in urban areas.
U.S. troops didn't ransack museums in Iraq. U.S. bombs were used on military targets.
...and civilian targets. Don't forget we bombed their sewage and water treatment plants. Not only is this explicitly verboten in the Geneva Convention, the UN estimates 500,000 children have died as a direct result of this action (read: cholera and dysentery). The standard counterargument is "well, why has Saddam pursued WMD instead of fixing the plants" and the standard counter to that is "well, there's this thing called 'the embargo' wherein it's difficult to get stuff you need." He already had the chemical and biological weapon equipment. We know because we've still got our copy of the receipts! All hail Reagan and "dual-use technology."
Not that I think Saddam is great. Frankly, I hate the bastard. But I also hate my government for not facing its shameful past.
and then there are us luddites who look for electronic gadgets with displays that actually TURN OFF. screw "dimming"... I want the damn thing OFF. Nothing uglier and distracting than your car stereo's screensaver when you're trying to sing and drive through hail at the same time!
Even cooler is the last about 4 seconds of the album, which is an endless loop (when played on vinyl), where the needle stays in the same circular track ad infinitum. On CD, they play the loop a few times before ending the track.
This is true of [some] versions of Pink Floyd's Meddle LP. The final "beep" of "Echoes" just keeps going and going and going...
FWIW, there's a hypothesis that the cornered and badly outnumbered Texicans won the battle of San Jacinto because the Mexican army had never operated in that area before and made their campfires by pulling up Acacia bushes. (I suppose this could be refuted by showing that the same species grows in Mexico. Does anyone know?)
That sounds a little far-fetched to me... I mean, how much second-hand DMT smoke could you get from an open air campfire?
Reading from my copy of Texas: The Lone Star State (ISBN: 0130284149):
At this point [Santa Anna] had made two serious mistakes; he had separated himself with a small force from the main body of the army, and he had camped in a location where organized retreat was difficult, if not impossible.
...That night the Texans slept... and had a good breakfast. In the early morning Santa Anna's forces received reinforcements when General Cós arrived with 542 (or perhaps more) tired and hungry troops. Santa Anna, convinced that the Texans did not intend to attack, permitted all, except for a small guard, to eat and retire to their tents for sleep and rest.
So, it sounds more like a tactical error on Santa Anna's part rather than any mysterious chemical.
Um, the Open Source movement, as contradistinguished from the Free Software movement, is all about economics. Greater efficiency and TCO through quality, shared software. By buying into the argument that Linux and Film Gimp make better sense for their products, they have bought into the Open Source movement.
Free Software movement is a whole 'nother animal. -l
Reminds me of math class in 4th grade. Mrs. Rogers was under the impression that kilometers were longer than miles (because meters are longer than yards...). It took my 4th grade brain nearly all period to explain why those ~4 inches per meter don't make up for 760 yards.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, the problem is our dirt is mostly clay-based (here, it's called koleche [co LEE chee]). I could talk to the landlord and have him remove all those damn landscaping rocks in the backyard to make room for a yard and a garden and have him get a half-ton of sand back there but that's pretty expensive and I doubt he'd go for it unless we were committing to stay there a long time.
:)
Right now, we're having enough trouble keeping 2 sunflowers and a houseplant alive.
-l
Indeed... here are some little things:
anyway, and I'm just a poor, young single Dad trying to make it. I'm sure others can add other creative, inexpensive ways to contribute.
-l
hrm... Postfix supports RBL stuff, but maintaining 2 separate mail systems seems a bit absurd... also, depending on your installation size and what you're doing with it, postfix can be slow.
$0.02USD,
-l
Sec. of State Alexander Haig himself removed Iraq from the list. Clearly Reagan both knew about it and supported it. Also, note the Congressional backlash AGAINST the removal.
I have yet to find a copy of the Export Administration Act of 1979 which defines the terrorism list, so I cannot substantiate your claim that the Reagan administration had no choice but to remove Iraq because of the rules. On the contrary, from the second article listed:
That's because you refuse to see what's in front of your own eyes. Only someone suffering from leftist paranoia or insanity could possible suggest that a document that explicitly says that "the Iraqi leadership must understand that any illegal use of chemcial and/or biological weapons will lead to economic and political sanctions, for which we would seek the broadest possible support from our allies and friends" is instead a secret document authorizing the sale to Iraq of biological weapons.
Your assertion is demonstrably false. EVERYONE knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. But the U.S. sought friendly relations with Iraq ANYWAY. Clearly, this language was tongue-in-cheek... nothing more than leftist P.C. rhetoric.
Furthermore, I've never stated that we sold them bio-weapons. Cluster bombs have been the only issue of actual weapons that I can find. While the United States vs Johnson ruling looks sound, the other Iraqgate investigation, the B.N.L. scandal, decidedly does not look sound.
You lying moron. It is not "third party". Iraq got it's weapons directly from Communist China, the USSR, and France. It didn't arrange those deals through the United States, and the suggestion that the United States would have encouraged, let alone had any input in, arms deals between those countries and Iraq during the 1980s shows what level of stupidity you people will go to in order to try to support your bogus conspiracy theories.
"No it didn't." That's the substance of your argument. Next time try to justify your claim.
What I know is:
Lastly, from Time on October 26, 1992, "Lone Wolf Or a Pack of Lies?"
Smells fishy to me.
-l
In case you've forgotten, the President is in charge of his Cabinet and his bureaucracy. If he is unaware of what's going on in Iran-Contra deals, removal of combatants from the list of terrorism-supporting states, etc. you know what that's called? It's called NEGLECT. In a court of law, it's called CRIMINAL NEGLECT. The captain goes down with the ship because it's his ship and it's his responsibility.
The third party deals have not been proved conclusively false in a court of law. The CIA withheld evidence which the Justice Department told them not to reveal. That Hillary Clinton was on the board of one of the NGOs fingered in the investigation is reason enough to raise eyebrows as to the efficacy of the investigation, not to mention the sealing up of Teicher's affidavit and his documentation which he used to back it up. Lastly, Federal prosecutors did NOT claim his documentation was false, they said it was IRRELEVANT to the investigation.
A look at the Iraqi military inventory shows that it's equipment is nearly all Soviet, Eastern Bloc, and Chinese, with a bit of French stuff thrown in.
You're stating exactly the same thing that Teicher says in his document: that, yes, it IS all third party. Thus, it does nothing to add to your argument, which rests entirely on Teicher's date of 1982 and whether or not the fuzzy language used in those NSDs could or could not be construed as allowing the CIA or the Commerce Dept. to assist Iraq, however directly or indirectly.
What's funny is that you continue calling me a leftist, despite the fact that that's a bald-faced lie based entirely on your failure to do any basic research on me. Being critical of government actions or arguing a differing perspective from yours is not "leftist" (whatever "leftist" even means, in your case), it's fundamental to a good society.
Lastly, you've provided no evidence that Teicher is the source for any of the Iraqgate claims prior to the release of the affidavit. You do say that the NSDs bear out your conclusion that no wrongdoing occurred, but I've read them and they appear to me to be far too ambiguous for your generous interpretation of "obvious".
-l
But, as you've failed to justify, none of the sales would have been possible had Reagan not removed Iraq from the list of terrorism-supporting states.
Why don't you link to or write an article based on available sources to justify your claims?
You seem incapable of seeing that multiple sources are used to gather material for these articles... as if one person's recollection -- Teicher's -- were the only justification for these claims. His is one of the most significant claims, but hardly the only one. There are still articles and official documents available online from 1992 and before... long before the 1995 affidavit.
Here's just one example from 1993: http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp
I also find it amusing you fail to connect the Bush administration's advocacy of supporting Iraq in NSD-26 even though he knew Hussein had gassed the Kurds just a year before and the Iranians throughout the entire war. If it were a real issue, they wouldn't have pursued such friendly relations with the Iraqis. I know Teicher wasn't in office then -- I thought you were confusing it because a lot of articles include references to Bush's NSD-26 and Teicher. Also note that Teicher's affidavit says "The NSDD, including even its indentifying number, is classified." It wouldn't surprise me if they had an alternative enumeration scheme for some things.
As far as lists of weapons, even Teicher says "the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq." Thus, our *weapons* would not appear on their inventories, though our biological agents and whatnot still would, due to Iraq's removal from the list of terrorism-supporting states (which allowed the sale of dual-use technology such as anthrax and botulism). The paperwork got filed and approved as a direct result of this.
I've never claimed we armed the Iraqis with U.S. weaponry -- only biological agents and third party deals, including ones documented independently of Teicher's affidavit.
-l
1) You didn't even bother to check your statement on United States vs. Johnson, so either you're a liar or it's not available on the Web where Google can find it (unlikely).
2) You're mixing ad hominem with argument. Stop it.
3) The directive is NSD-26 and that one was under the Bush Sr. administration regarding overall Persian Gulf policy including the normalization of relations with Iraq. Note that that was one year after Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds... I guess we really cared about that, then, ay? There are ALSO a number of Reagan-era NSDDs related to Iraq, unfortunately the NSD system overlaps for each President so it is easy to get confused. I'm sorry that happened to you, but I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.
4) I submit to you:
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.htm l
There's no way that would have happened had Iraq not been removed from the list of terrorism-supporting states.
-l
Oh, I believe in holding individuals accountable for their actions. But, for example, note the huge percentage of elections that were fixed prior to the 1970s; it seems to point to a wider systemic problem of the older U.S. implementations of "democratic republic". I.e., if the public's choice has to use corruption to win, the system is broken, not necessarily just the candidate.
In terms of foreign policy, it's a matter of perception. The U.S. government is perceived as a whole, however skewed that view may be. The U.S. is continuous in history, even if the individual actors are not. So, the system has to take responsibility for its historical actions, even though its current actors may or may not have anything to do with the situation. (We also use this convenience any time we talk about company property, ideas, and actions.)
This is why I think the U.S. government must officially recognize and apologize for its wrongdoings. It doesn't have to be a big "boo hoo" session, just a "we recognize that we've made policy mistakes in the past. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20 and we wish we'd done otherwise, as a nation. However, going forward, we intend to treat all people of the world as worthy of humane treatment, human rights and liberties."
This would be in contrast with the current policy which goes so far as to label U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants", subject to trial by rocket, rather than trial by jury.
Thanks for the book recommendation,
-l
oh, I totally agree with that. I just think we have some "legacy API issues" we need to address as we continue our progress toward the ideal democratic republic.
-l
Horseshit. I looked up United States v. Johnson and it contains no reference to Howard Teicher.
Google around for it. You'll find it to be true.
-l
Here's some info:
Allies Deliberately Poisoned Iraq Public Water Supply In Gulf War. htm
(originally published in Scotland's Sunday Herald)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01
Also, just google around for "gulf war", water, and "geneva convention".
I retract the "500,000 children". Just found an article here that disputes that number: http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
-l
Iraq would never have gotten anthrax, botulism, and toxic insecticides had the Reagan administration not taken Iraq off the list of terrorist states.
You'll note that the article notes in several places the U.S. being unhappy with the use of chemical and biological weapons. I never said the U.S. was happy about it, only that they supported Iraq and its use implicitly.
None of that information relies on Teicher's intrigue. It's documented by other sources, as noted in the article.
-l
That's not a rebuttal, that's an anecdote and it only applies to Baghdad.
-l
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagena
-l
Reagan took Iraq off the list of terrorism-supporting states exactly so that we could sell them biological agents (read: dual-use technologies) and other military technology and provide them with CIA intelligence and training for their war against Iran and its Kurdish supporters.
You're correct that we didn't sell them anything that was explicitly a weapon over the counter.
-l
Oh, I forgot to mention body bags.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ ART/2003/02/25/3e5b33e322646
-l
...and civilian targets. Don't forget we bombed their sewage and water treatment plants. Not only is this explicitly verboten in the Geneva Convention, the UN estimates 500,000 children have died as a direct result of this action (read: cholera and dysentery). The standard counterargument is "well, why has Saddam pursued WMD instead of fixing the plants" and the standard counter to that is "well, there's this thing called 'the embargo' wherein it's difficult to get stuff you need." He already had the chemical and biological weapon equipment. We know because we've still got our copy of the receipts! All hail Reagan and "dual-use technology."
Not that I think Saddam is great. Frankly, I hate the bastard. But I also hate my government for not facing its shameful past.
I think the world deserves an apology.
-l
Free software has always prided itself on being useful in baby-mulching machines... I don't see how war is any different.
(seriously, just google for "baby-mulching machines")
-l
and then there are us luddites who look for electronic gadgets with displays that actually TURN OFF. screw "dimming"... I want the damn thing OFF. Nothing uglier and distracting than your car stereo's screensaver when you're trying to sing and drive through hail at the same time!
-l
This is true of [some] versions of Pink Floyd's Meddle LP. The final "beep" of "Echoes" just keeps going and going and going...
-l
That sounds a little far-fetched to me... I mean, how much second-hand DMT smoke could you get from an open air campfire?
Reading from my copy of Texas: The Lone Star State (ISBN: 0130284149):
So, it sounds more like a tactical error on Santa Anna's part rather than any mysterious chemical.
-l
Um, the Open Source movement, as contradistinguished from the Free Software movement, is all about economics. Greater efficiency and TCO through quality, shared software. By buying into the argument that Linux and Film Gimp make better sense for their products, they have bought into the Open Source movement.
Free Software movement is a whole 'nother animal.
-l
Oi, that's too eerie. Reminds me of Donnie Darko... if you haven't seen that, you should.
Weirded out,
-l
Reminds me of math class in 4th grade. Mrs. Rogers was under the impression that kilometers were longer than miles (because meters are longer than yards...). It took my 4th grade brain nearly all period to explain why those ~4 inches per meter don't make up for 760 yards.
Ah well,
-l
-l