You can import any file for which you have a QuickTime codec on your Mac into iMovie, but iMovie will convert it to a DV stream on import.
If you've got an MPEG-2 codec, you can bring MPEG-2 content into iMovie. You just have to be prepared to wait a bit for iMovie to do the conversion to DV format.
Some professional and "pro-sumer" (ugh) cameras have black-and-white viewfinders. The Canon XL-1 and derivatives has a color viewfinder. No idea why; they just do, I think.
I'm afraid you have your dates wrong. No big deal; it was more than 10 years ago. But Apple was first to market with that feature. I know this firsthand.
I remember selling end-of-line PC notebooks that had keyboards placed at the hinge end in 1991.
The PowerBook 100, 140 and 170 debuted in October 1991. I'm sure there were non-Apple laptops with the new keyboard design after that, but I'm quite certain that the PowerBook got there first.
Ah, okay. Then you were first able to do speech input on any Mac starting in 1994, the year that the Power Macintosh debuted, with System 7.1.2. So I was off by a year.
I don't believe an AV Mac was required to do speech input. I just said that was the first Mac I ever did speech input on. As far as I know, any Mac that had the necessary software (again, I believe it was System 7) and a microphone could do speech input, with varying results depending on the microphone.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that you say OS/2 needed a sound card. No Mac has ever needed a sound card to do anything.
Look, I understand that opinions are neither right nor wrong and that everybody's entitled to one...but come on, man. Have you ever actually seen an iPod? An iPod is simple and elegant. A Rio Carbon looks like a prop from a bad 1970s-era science fiction TV show.
Opinions are neither right nor wrong...but sometimes you just have to take a step back and re-evaluate. You know?
ibm os/2 (w3 or w4? can't recall) had this as an OS built-in while mac was still at system 7.2, which had no speech recog
I don't know that that's correct. The first Mac I remember using speech on was the Quadra 660 AV which debuted in 1993 with System 7.1. How does that compare to OS/2?
there were laptops before the powerbook was launched - what about the powerbook did you think was innovative?
The PowerBook was the first portable computer you could actually use on your lap. Look at the position of the keyboard on a PowerBook and compare it to the position of the keyboard on any other existing laptop. Apple was the first company to do that: to move the keyboard back so you could have a place to rest your palms. Now all laptops are designed that way. That's a pretty good working definition of "innovative," huh? Being the first one to come up with something that is now universal?
other media wrappers existed prior to quicktime
Like which ones, exactly? (And no, your characterization of QuickTime as a "wrapper" is not correct. It's an extensible media file format plus a vast API.)
"the mac" - it had innovative features for a pc, but it was still, essentially, just another sequential release for a pc company.
I don't even understand that. The Mac was the first widely available computer with a mouse-driven graphical user interface. The Mac changed everything.
Mac OS X has similar window and UI scaling functions built in but not available for the user to change, for now it's 72 dpi, same as it always has been.
It's been years since Apple sold a 72-dpi monitor. Everything in their product line today falls somewhere between 90 dpi and 110 dpi.
A 1400 by 1050 screen (actually 1440 by 900; a 4:3 aspect ratio is just wrong) should be about 17" diagonally. That comes out to around 100 dpi. (Give or take; anything from 90 dpi to 110 dpi is what I'm talking about here.) If you cram all those pixels into a 14" (diagonal) screen, the pixels are much too small. Software expects the screen to have a dot pitch of about 100 pixels per inch. So If you cram too many pixels into too small a space, you end up with a computer on which everything looks funny and wrong, like it shrunk in the wash.
The absurd limit of this, of course, is the old IBM "Big Bertha" monitor which had a dot pitch of over 200 dpi, which meant if you hooked it up to just an ordinary computer, everything displayed on it was half the size it was supposed to be. Completely screwed up.
If the day ever comes when computers are commonly able to adjust their on-screen graphics to compensate for the monitor's actual dot pitch, great. But until that day, stick to standard 100-dpi screens.
Such screens have the wrong dot pitch, making everything look funny. I'm sure you have your reasons for preferring them, but you'd do well I think to remember that they have significant disadvantages as well.
This is true only to the extent that the "standard" in question is a good one. Adherence to a bad "standard" is no virtue, and rejection of such a "standard" is no vice.
(I keep using scare-quotes because, in fact, Windows has no UI standard or guidelines. Little known fact.)
More importantly, Apple has licensed QuickTime to Nokia for their future products, and since FairPlay is a part of QuickTime, the answer is doubly yes.
I second that wholeheartedly. Forget everything you know...forget that there was another TV show with the same name back in the 70s. The new "Galactica" is a wonder. It's realistic and gritty and unrelentingly dark and SMART. It doesn't underestimate the intelligence of its audience. In one episode the lead cast used the jargon term "UNREP" repeatedly, and not once did anyone explain it. The audience was expected to just glork it from context.
I'll say this, too: It's a show that would not have been made, or at least would not have been made in any similar way, before 9/11. I mean, for cryin' out loud: the premise of the show is based on the near-annihilation of the human race. During the first regular-run episode after the pilot, the civilian government (such as it is) is obsessed with getting an accurate head-count not of the casualties of the attack but of the survivors. Why? Because the number of survivors is smaller. The writers do not try to gloss over this aspect of the story in order to make the episodes easier to watch. They face it head-on and expect the audience to just fuckin' deal.
How about the one that contained Uday Hussein's infamous plastics shredder? Want a street address? Can't help you.
There've only been 5,000 bodies found in mass graves in Iraq
You need to keep up with the reports. The number has now topped 300,000. But setting that aside, I want to know what kind of fucked-up, crazy world you live in where you can say "5,000 bodies" and "only" in the same sentence.
Give names for the supposed abducted people and a realistic number.
The realistic number has, as I said, topped 300,000. Why should I give you names? You wouldn't recognize them anyway. See, they're far-away people. Their deaths don't matter to you.
Seing as the only two women bloggers from Iraq that I am aware of that are out there (Faiza Jarrar and Riverbend) both intensely disagree with you, who should I believe here?
I'll assume you're making a little joke.
There were an estimated 9.8 million elligable voters in Afghanistan.
The magic word here is "estimated." You're obviously unclear on what words like "law" mean, so it doesn't surprise me that you're unclear on what the word "estimated" means.
They were *WAY* overregistered.
So you're now the authority on Afghan voter fraud. Despite the fact that, you know, every international body has certified this election, including your precious UN. Mmm-kay.
Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.
And the "International Law Commission" is sovereign...why? Under what authority does the "International Law Commission" pass laws? Here, I have just passed a law, adopted by the International Twirlip Commission, that says you're prohibited from using a computer. Binding, huh?
The prohibition is also in the Charter of the United Nations, which is ratified by the US.
Which is not anything even remotely approaching a law.
The UN secretary general, 3 of 5 permanent security council members, and most international law scholars disagree with you.
I care about this...why? The UN Secretary General is scrambling desperately to keep from being indicted now that his involvement in oil-for-food has become public. Russia and France were in on the scam as well, as was Germany. You can't really believe anything China says on the subject because their basic definitions are incompatible with ours. And "most international law scholars" is a pretty meaningless statement, don't you think?
Interpretation of what text?
It's an expression. You would have heard it at some point if you were...you know...educated in any respect.
At MOST, Iraq had things that it could have used for making weapons. That does not a violation make.
Um. I think you have mixed up the meanings of "most" and "least." Either way, yes, Iraq was in violation. You are unclear on this because you have either never read the relevant cease-fire documents or you have not understood them. There's no shame in that. There is, however, much shame in continuing to speak from a position of ignorance.
It did not have WMDs
Sarin and mustard gas are WMDs. Ballistic missiles are WMDs. Weaponized anthrax is a WMD.
it did not have any banned equipment that the IAEA or UNMOVIC considered to be significant
I'm sorry..."significant?" Are you backpedaling here? Are you suggesting that yes, Iraq was in violation, but not in a significant way? Because I don't recall any language in the cease-fire documents or subsequent documents saying that violations were okay if they weren't significant. I'm pretty sure, in fact, that the documents -- which Iraqi generals signed at Safwan --said that violations weren't okay, "significant" be damned.
Please stop quoting the Lancet article. It has been roundly discredited. The estimate that the authors of that article came up with was between 8,000 and 198,000 civilian deaths, and even with that error bar it was still only 95% confidence. And those results were based on absurd methodology. The 98,000 figure is completely wrong.
The best estimates of civilian deaths --not Iraqi soldiers, not terrorists, not partisans or other non-uniformed combatants --is in the low thousands. Ironically, half of those deaths have been caused by terrorists operating inside Iraq, not by any military force.
Wow. The sheer volume of ignorance being thrown around here is amazing. Hint for you, free of charge: The term "war crime" does not mean "anything I don't like." Another hint: You're an idiot. Here endeth the lesson.
Iraq had one of the most progressive legal system toward women in the arab Middle East.
The one that involved kidnappings in the middle of the night, imprisonment without trial, torture by the Secret Police and execution in one of thousands of slaughterhouses? That "progressive legal system?"
You're out of your mind.
I'm always very impressed by a country that has more registered voters than citizens
There were about 10 million registered voters in Afghanistan, and about 10 million ballots cast, out of a population of about 26 million. I don't know where you're getting your disinformation from, but you need to find a better source.
The Nuremberg principles established the basis that wars of aggression are illegal.
Simply saying it doesn't make it true. What law? Passed by what sovereign authority? Law imposed without the consent of the governed is tyranny. You may be okay with this, since you think that Iraq had a "progressive legal system." But it's not how we do things.
Also, you don't have any idea what the phrase "war of aggression" means. If you did, you would know that the Coalition invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression.
You mean, the time we were punishing Iraq for its evil secret weapons programs, and for "lying" when saying that it didn't have weapons?
Um. What? That sentence doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that Iraq did not have weapons programs that it was not permitted to have? Because, you know, that's a pretty radical interpretation of the text.
You're calling a war "unaggressive"? What's next, violent peace?
That's very cute. It's kind of sad that you don't realize that the phrase "war of aggression" has a very specific, technical meaning in international relations. It's a jargon term, if you will. Not only do you not understand it, you're not even aware of it.
You're so completely out of your depth here it's embarrassing to us both.
according to Amnesty International, about 80% were simply family members of suspects
That allegation was debunked and retracted about ten minutes after it was issued. It didn't come from Amnesty International; it came from the International Red Cross, and it was based on a mistranslation of a Coalition report. It is, in other words, a myth, a rumor.
Abu_Ghraib
You're unclear on what "torture" means too, I see. These words have meanings. Please either learn them or shut the fuck up.
Close enough for you?
"Error: Sorry, the page you requested is not available."
When you sign onto something like that, we call it 'international law'.
No, that's not correct.
And every law is something someone just made up and other people agreed with.
No, that's not right either. See, there this notion called "sovereignty." It touches on issues like who gets to make the laws and who is bound by the laws. The general principle is that laws are only sovereign when they are passed by the consent of those governed by them. A "law" that lacks sovereignty isn't a law at all.
Oh, did they attack the US?
Yes, repeatedly. Our soldiers patrolling the (UN-mandated) "no-fly" zones were fired on regularly. The Iraqi Mukhabarat planned, but was unable to carry out, an attack that would have resulted in the assassination of President George H. W. Bush. Yes, Iraq attacked the United States repeatedly between 1991 and 2003.
Or was the provocation something along the lines of 'mommy, they won't do exactly what we tell them'?
Yes, there was that, too. Refusal to abide by the terms of a bilateral cease-fire agreement is casus belli.
Or maybe it was those ever-elusive WMDs that the UN repeatedly said weren't there?
You mean the ones we found? The mustard gas bombs and sarin gas artillery shells and the uranium-processing equipment and the biological warfare agents? Yes, those too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
Heh. If you'll pardon me, I'm not going to waste any time on this. Extract your head from your ass, take an international relations class or two, then come try again. Citing a blog isn't going to get it done.
Iraq was fairly well off for an arab state at the time
You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Iraq was a brutal place. The populace lived in fear of the Mukhabarat and the Secret Police. Disappearances were common, disfigurements even more so. There were absolutely no civil liberties as we understand them, no due process of law. It was one of the most oppressive places on Earth.
And yes the un charter makes the us invasion and occupation of iraq illegal.
The UN Charter is not law. It doesn't make anything legal or illegal. But that doesn't really matter, because the UN Charter specifically says that states have the right to wage war in self defense. Iraq was a terrorist state. Terrorists have declared war on the United States and attacked us in our homeland. War against terrorist states is a war of self defense.
Slashdot Mirror
you want to know what colors you're shooting without hooking up an external monitor
I'm so sorry to hear that you've only got one eye. How'd you lose the other one?
(I kid, I kid.)
You can import any file for which you have a QuickTime codec on your Mac into iMovie, but iMovie will convert it to a DV stream on import.
If you've got an MPEG-2 codec, you can bring MPEG-2 content into iMovie. You just have to be prepared to wait a bit for iMovie to do the conversion to DV format.
Some professional and "pro-sumer" (ugh) cameras have black-and-white viewfinders. The Canon XL-1 and derivatives has a color viewfinder. No idea why; they just do, I think.
why would I lie about it?
Are you kidding? This is Slashdot. Lies outnumber the truth here by a margin of a thousand to one.
I'd think so too, but here we are.
I'm afraid you have your dates wrong. No big deal; it was more than 10 years ago. But Apple was first to market with that feature. I know this firsthand.
I remember selling end-of-line PC notebooks that had keyboards placed at the hinge end in 1991.
The PowerBook 100, 140 and 170 debuted in October 1991. I'm sure there were non-Apple laptops with the new keyboard design after that, but I'm quite certain that the PowerBook got there first.
Ah, okay. Then you were first able to do speech input on any Mac starting in 1994, the year that the Power Macintosh debuted, with System 7.1.2. So I was off by a year.
I don't believe an AV Mac was required to do speech input. I just said that was the first Mac I ever did speech input on. As far as I know, any Mac that had the necessary software (again, I believe it was System 7) and a microphone could do speech input, with varying results depending on the microphone.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that you say OS/2 needed a sound card. No Mac has ever needed a sound card to do anything.
Look, I understand that opinions are neither right nor wrong and that everybody's entitled to one ...but come on, man. Have you ever actually seen an iPod? An iPod is simple and elegant. A Rio Carbon looks like a prop from a bad 1970s-era science fiction TV show.
...but sometimes you just have to take a step back and re-evaluate. You know?
Opinions are neither right nor wrong
For "important" substitute "profitable."
:-)
And I think Steve is more of a brand than a product.
ibm os/2 (w3 or w4? can't recall) had this as an OS built-in while mac was still at system 7.2, which had no speech recog
I don't know that that's correct. The first Mac I remember using speech on was the Quadra 660 AV which debuted in 1993 with System 7.1. How does that compare to OS/2?
there were laptops before the powerbook was launched - what about the powerbook did you think was innovative?
The PowerBook was the first portable computer you could actually use on your lap. Look at the position of the keyboard on a PowerBook and compare it to the position of the keyboard on any other existing laptop. Apple was the first company to do that: to move the keyboard back so you could have a place to rest your palms. Now all laptops are designed that way. That's a pretty good working definition of "innovative," huh? Being the first one to come up with something that is now universal?
other media wrappers existed prior to quicktime
Like which ones, exactly? (And no, your characterization of QuickTime as a "wrapper" is not correct. It's an extensible media file format plus a vast API.)
"the mac" - it had innovative features for a pc, but it was still, essentially, just another sequential release for a pc company.
I don't even understand that. The Mac was the first widely available computer with a mouse-driven graphical user interface. The Mac changed everything.
Mac OS X has similar window and UI scaling functions built in but not available for the user to change, for now it's 72 dpi, same as it always has been.
It's been years since Apple sold a 72-dpi monitor. Everything in their product line today falls somewhere between 90 dpi and 110 dpi.
A 1400 by 1050 screen (actually 1440 by 900; a 4:3 aspect ratio is just wrong) should be about 17" diagonally. That comes out to around 100 dpi. (Give or take; anything from 90 dpi to 110 dpi is what I'm talking about here.) If you cram all those pixels into a 14" (diagonal) screen, the pixels are much too small. Software expects the screen to have a dot pitch of about 100 pixels per inch. So If you cram too many pixels into too small a space, you end up with a computer on which everything looks funny and wrong, like it shrunk in the wash.
The absurd limit of this, of course, is the old IBM "Big Bertha" monitor which had a dot pitch of over 200 dpi, which meant if you hooked it up to just an ordinary computer, everything displayed on it was half the size it was supposed to be. Completely screwed up.
If the day ever comes when computers are commonly able to adjust their on-screen graphics to compensate for the monitor's actual dot pitch, great. But until that day, stick to standard 100-dpi screens.
Such screens have the wrong dot pitch, making everything look funny. I'm sure you have your reasons for preferring them, but you'd do well I think to remember that they have significant disadvantages as well.
This is true only to the extent that the "standard" in question is a good one. Adherence to a bad "standard" is no virtue, and rejection of such a "standard" is no vice.
(I keep using scare-quotes because, in fact, Windows has no UI standard or guidelines. Little known fact.)
More importantly, Apple has licensed QuickTime to Nokia for their future products, and since FairPlay is a part of QuickTime, the answer is doubly yes.
The poster whom you so rightfully upbraided is confused. He thinks that iTunes and the iTunes Music Store are the same thing.
On the one hand, go easy on him because he's merely ignorant. But on the other hand, suffer not a fool to live.
I second that wholeheartedly. Forget everything you know ...forget that there was another TV show with the same name back in the 70s. The new "Galactica" is a wonder. It's realistic and gritty and unrelentingly dark and SMART. It doesn't underestimate the intelligence of its audience. In one episode the lead cast used the jargon term "UNREP" repeatedly, and not once did anyone explain it. The audience was expected to just glork it from context.
I'll say this, too: It's a show that would not have been made, or at least would not have been made in any similar way, before 9/11. I mean, for cryin' out loud: the premise of the show is based on the near-annihilation of the human race. During the first regular-run episode after the pilot, the civilian government (such as it is) is obsessed with getting an accurate head-count not of the casualties of the attack but of the survivors. Why? Because the number of survivors is smaller. The writers do not try to gloss over this aspect of the story in order to make the episodes easier to watch. They face it head-on and expect the audience to just fuckin' deal.
Watch it. It's incredible.
Cite a single slaughterhouse's location.
...why? Under what authority does the "International Law Commission" pass laws? Here, I have just passed a law, adopted by the International Twirlip Commission, that says you're prohibited from using a computer. Binding, huh?
...why? The UN Secretary General is scrambling desperately to keep from being indicted now that his involvement in oil-for-food has become public. Russia and France were in on the scam as well, as was Germany. You can't really believe anything China says on the subject because their basic definitions are incompatible with ours. And "most international law scholars" is a pretty meaningless statement, don't you think?
...you know ...educated in any respect.
..."significant?" Are you backpedaling here? Are you suggesting that yes, Iraq was in violation, but not in a significant way? Because I don't recall any language in the cease-fire documents or subsequent documents saying that violations were okay if they weren't significant. I'm pretty sure, in fact, that the documents -- which Iraqi generals signed at Safwan --said that violations weren't okay, "significant" be damned.
How about the one that contained Uday Hussein's infamous plastics shredder? Want a street address? Can't help you.
There've only been 5,000 bodies found in mass graves in Iraq
You need to keep up with the reports. The number has now topped 300,000. But setting that aside, I want to know what kind of fucked-up, crazy world you live in where you can say "5,000 bodies" and "only" in the same sentence.
Give names for the supposed abducted people and a realistic number.
The realistic number has, as I said, topped 300,000. Why should I give you names? You wouldn't recognize them anyway. See, they're far-away people. Their deaths don't matter to you.
Seing as the only two women bloggers from Iraq that I am aware of that are out there (Faiza Jarrar and Riverbend) both intensely disagree with you, who should I believe here?
I'll assume you're making a little joke.
There were an estimated 9.8 million elligable voters in Afghanistan.
The magic word here is "estimated." You're obviously unclear on what words like "law" mean, so it doesn't surprise me that you're unclear on what the word "estimated" means.
They were *WAY* overregistered.
So you're now the authority on Afghan voter fraud. Despite the fact that, you know, every international body has certified this election, including your precious UN. Mmm-kay.
Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.
And the "International Law Commission" is sovereign
The prohibition is also in the Charter of the United Nations, which is ratified by the US.
Which is not anything even remotely approaching a law.
The UN secretary general, 3 of 5 permanent security council members, and most international law scholars disagree with you.
I care about this
Interpretation of what text?
It's an expression. You would have heard it at some point if you were
At MOST, Iraq had things that it could have used for making weapons. That does not a violation make.
Um. I think you have mixed up the meanings of "most" and "least." Either way, yes, Iraq was in violation. You are unclear on this because you have either never read the relevant cease-fire documents or you have not understood them. There's no shame in that. There is, however, much shame in continuing to speak from a position of ignorance.
It did not have WMDs
Sarin and mustard gas are WMDs. Ballistic missiles are WMDs. Weaponized anthrax is a WMD.
it did not have any banned equipment that the IAEA or UNMOVIC considered to be significant
I'm sorry
Are you als
Please stop quoting the Lancet article. It has been roundly discredited. The estimate that the authors of that article came up with was between 8,000 and 198,000 civilian deaths, and even with that error bar it was still only 95% confidence. And those results were based on absurd methodology. The 98,000 figure is completely wrong.
The best estimates of civilian deaths --not Iraqi soldiers, not terrorists, not partisans or other non-uniformed combatants --is in the low thousands. Ironically, half of those deaths have been caused by terrorists operating inside Iraq, not by any military force.
Wow. The sheer volume of ignorance being thrown around here is amazing. Hint for you, free of charge: The term "war crime" does not mean "anything I don't like." Another hint: You're an idiot. Here endeth the lesson.
Iraq had one of the most progressive legal system toward women in the arab Middle East.
The one that involved kidnappings in the middle of the night, imprisonment without trial, torture by the Secret Police and execution in one of thousands of slaughterhouses? That "progressive legal system?"
You're out of your mind.
I'm always very impressed by a country that has more registered voters than citizens
There were about 10 million registered voters in Afghanistan, and about 10 million ballots cast, out of a population of about 26 million. I don't know where you're getting your disinformation from, but you need to find a better source.
The Nuremberg principles established the basis that wars of aggression are illegal.
Simply saying it doesn't make it true. What law? Passed by what sovereign authority? Law imposed without the consent of the governed is tyranny. You may be okay with this, since you think that Iraq had a "progressive legal system." But it's not how we do things.
Also, you don't have any idea what the phrase "war of aggression" means. If you did, you would know that the Coalition invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression.
You mean, the time we were punishing Iraq for its evil secret weapons programs, and for "lying" when saying that it didn't have weapons?
Um. What? That sentence doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that Iraq did not have weapons programs that it was not permitted to have? Because, you know, that's a pretty radical interpretation of the text.
You're calling a war "unaggressive"? What's next, violent peace?
That's very cute. It's kind of sad that you don't realize that the phrase "war of aggression" has a very specific, technical meaning in international relations. It's a jargon term, if you will. Not only do you not understand it, you're not even aware of it.
You're so completely out of your depth here it's embarrassing to us both.
according to Amnesty International, about 80% were simply family members of suspects
That allegation was debunked and retracted about ten minutes after it was issued. It didn't come from Amnesty International; it came from the International Red Cross, and it was based on a mistranslation of a Coalition report. It is, in other words, a myth, a rumor.
Abu_Ghraib
You're unclear on what "torture" means too, I see. These words have meanings. Please either learn them or shut the fuck up.
Close enough for you?
"Error: Sorry, the page you requested is not available."
When you sign onto something like that, we call it 'international law'.
No, that's not correct.
And every law is something someone just made up and other people agreed with.
No, that's not right either. See, there this notion called "sovereignty." It touches on issues like who gets to make the laws and who is bound by the laws. The general principle is that laws are only sovereign when they are passed by the consent of those governed by them. A "law" that lacks sovereignty isn't a law at all.
Oh, did they attack the US?
Yes, repeatedly. Our soldiers patrolling the (UN-mandated) "no-fly" zones were fired on regularly. The Iraqi Mukhabarat planned, but was unable to carry out, an attack that would have resulted in the assassination of President George H. W. Bush. Yes, Iraq attacked the United States repeatedly between 1991 and 2003.
Or was the provocation something along the lines of 'mommy, they won't do exactly what we tell them'?
Yes, there was that, too. Refusal to abide by the terms of a bilateral cease-fire agreement is casus belli.
Or maybe it was those ever-elusive WMDs that the UN repeatedly said weren't there?
You mean the ones we found? The mustard gas bombs and sarin gas artillery shells and the uranium-processing equipment and the biological warfare agents? Yes, those too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
Heh. If you'll pardon me, I'm not going to waste any time on this. Extract your head from your ass, take an international relations class or two, then come try again. Citing a blog isn't going to get it done.
Iraq was fairly well off for an arab state at the time
You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Iraq was a brutal place. The populace lived in fear of the Mukhabarat and the Secret Police. Disappearances were common, disfigurements even more so. There were absolutely no civil liberties as we understand them, no due process of law. It was one of the most oppressive places on Earth.
And yes the un charter makes the us invasion and occupation of iraq illegal.
The UN Charter is not law. It doesn't make anything legal or illegal. But that doesn't really matter, because the UN Charter specifically says that states have the right to wage war in self defense. Iraq was a terrorist state. Terrorists have declared war on the United States and attacked us in our homeland. War against terrorist states is a war of self defense.