I always thought they should just do away with charging for postage costs. Just have the seller name a minimum bid he or she is willing to accept, one which incorporates the shipping cost already.
Interesting! It's true that I do have one side of the house that directly catches the sun's rays at the end of the day. Although it is white (metal siding), so I guess I am a little surprised that this would happen.
The roof of the house has eaves that overhang each side. Your comment makes me wonder if I could just hang a tarp off the eave on the west side, thus shading that wall. Hmmm, maybe I will experiment with that.
- AJ
PS Right now, almost 11 p.m., the sun is just sinking over the horizon. Outside it is a perfect, beautiful 60 degrees, and inside -- 80!
I rent a very small, one-story house. It used to get SO hot in the evenings -- much hotter than outside, and opening the windows just didn't seem to help much.
(As an aside, why is this? How can the temperature continue to climb after the sun goes down? I never really figured that out. My guess is that the air in the attic was superheated, and as it cooled at night would slowly come down out of there. But I digress.)
So I was out watering the lawn one day and out of curiousity pointed my hose up on to the roof. The water came out of the hose very cold, and came off the roof as hot as a very hot shower.
So I got one of those self-irrigating garden hoses and ran it right along the crest of my roof. Now when it gets hot I just turn the hose on. It works OK, though not as well as I had hoped. Plus it's kind of nice to sit in my house with the sound of rain falling all around me in the background.
Interesting point. If I had mod points (and wasn't the thread originator) I'd give you some.
I do have one very very minor quibble. Well, maybe not even a quibble, just a comment. You say "With humans it's not... a case of... becoming the ultimate mammoth-killing experts." But since humans were likely the *only* things capable of regularly taking down mammoth, in that sense one *could* consider them the "ultimate mammoth-killing experts." Also, the greatest food source later available to Eskimos was the whale. Whale hunting became practically the centerpiece of their culture (both Yup'ik and Inupiaq). It could very well have been similar with mammoth, with the difference being it would have been a lot easier to track and find all the mammoth than it was to find whales.
Well, you're certainly basically correct. The Yup'ik Eskimos of Alaska (don't know about the Inupiaq) have a delicacy that basically translates to "stinky heads." What you do is you take all your cut-off fish heads, put them in a bag, and bury them. A month or two later, you dig them up, take them out of the bag, and -- urk -- eat them. Yum!
[Several Eskimos were killed, in the 1960s and 1970s as I recall, in stinky-head related incidents. What happened was, they buried the fish in plastic bags or similar non-draining containers. The heads thus developed botulism contamination.]
On the other hand, what they did with the fish *bodies* was mostly dry them. So once again an aboriginal group shows that even relatively primitive cultures were marvelously flexible and adaptable when it came to using available resources.
Hmm. I know a relatively famous (in his field, at least) paleoanthropologist,and was just talking to him about this very thing. I asked him his thoughts about the two competing theories of large animal extinction.
He said that while it was currently fashionable to blame the climate and exonerate aboriginal hunters, he said it makes perfect sense that it was probably a combination of the two.
We modern humans have a definite tendency to underestimate the intelligence, resourcefulness and persistence of our forebears. A good example of this is all the mysticism and voodoo crackpot theories of how Stonehenge, the pyramids, etc. were built. The fact is that ancient people were quite -- sometimes ingeniously -- resourceful at accomplishing what they wanted to do.
Along that same vein, I have no doubt that they became quite expert at killing such things as mammoths, which would feed a whole clan for months (esp. if you dry some of the meat, etc) and provide ivory, bone and fur besides. Mammoth hunting would also have been a great opportunity for clan members to show their skills, bravery and dedication to the tribe -- something of great importance in many aboriginal societies.
Paleoanthropologists are a pretty interesting bunch to talk to.
Is this a joke? Seriously, I can't tell if this is supposed to be satire. The reason I ask is, of course... it is UTTERLY LOONEY.
I mean, geez, there are multiple holes in every single sentence. Where to begin?
1. We have detailed plans for invading every country, including Canada. It's called "Deliberate Planning" (as opposed to "Crisis Action Planning").
2. It's one of the jobs of the Defense Department to develop those plans. Any Defense Department that did *not* develop those plans for a country as volatile and strategically important as Iraq should immediately have everyone sacked for grevious dereliction of duty.
3. " A decade later, they return to their old offices" seems like a pretty convoluted way to avoid mentioning they won an election.
4. "A few months later, a Pearl Harbor scale event occurs" An event that, of course, we now know had been planned and organized during the reign of the *previous* administration.
5. In fact, the official U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq was put forth by that previous administration, in 1998.
OK, enough of this. Just remember -- I'm trying to *help* you.
- Alaska Jack
Popularizing existing technologies
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Apple has a history of taking existing but fringe technologies and making them mainstream. I thought, in keeping with this, that the next revision of the iMac would keep the swing-arm structure, but add the ability to rotate the screen to portrait mode.
Don't get me wrong, the new iMacs are cool, but I would have liked to see the rotating monitor become mainstream.
1. Even Prof. Brotherton, whose post I critiqued, didn't feel the need to tell me to STFU. Seriously -- is that how you talk to complete strangers? Isn't that kind of weird?
2. Remember, "they" are the supposedly newly-influential religious fundamentalists. Fundies aren't the reason we have broadcast standards. (Why would fundies want to come down on Stern but leave Oprah off the hook, anyway? Wouldn't they want to come down on Oprah *more*, because they're racist and sexist hicks?) The reason we have broadcast standards is because *most everyone* wants them (and always have, as you yourself note). The only way your argument can get around this is if you define most EVERYONE as fundamentalist.
3. If you're going to be insulting, couldn't you at least be original or clever?
Seriously. I have no idea what you're talking about. I just read the article again (both pages) and can't find anything like what you just wrote.
Here's a hint. Do a search in the article for the word "boycott." Notice how it doesn't appear in the article anywhere? Now try to square that with what you wrote.
See here for more thoughts: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=143152&cid=119 97119
"Ignorant fundamentalists certainly do have some power over what is available to the rest of the country. They stack school boards, for instance,"
1. school boards are local, and have no "power over what is available to the rest of the country."
2. There is a certain set of tradeoffs with local control. Half of local school boards will be below average. A few will be disastrous. It's the nature of the beast.
3. "in an effort to push Creationism and have had some successes in recent years." I certainly oppose this kind of thing. However, what I think a lot of/.ers overlook is that, in relation to the entire U.S., these sorts of things are statistically insignificant. They get so much media attention specifically because they're aberations.
4. I still think the IMAX people need to show a little backbone. Come on boys, this is the big leagues -- are you going to play or not?
5. Hey, if anyone around here is going to argue against a good buzz, it ain't gonna be me.
6. I've only had this happen a few times, and each time they've been very polite and left when I told them I wasn't interested. But I could see how it would get annoying if they came around a lot. Have you considered putting up a sign?
2. This is perhaps the worst-modded/. discussion I've ever read. Stupid little rants and gratuitous religion-bashing are being modded as "insightful" and even "informative." Come on, moderators: The system doesn't exist so you can go "Right on dude! Religion sucks!" and click "insightful."
3. If this story is legit -- and I'm not at all sure that it is -- the villains aren't the fundies. The villains are the theater managers. TFA doesn't mention any actual protests -- just the *fear* of protests.
4. Like a few other brave souls in this discussion, I find the story pretty fishy. It reads like a pretty typical liberal alarmist, NYT view of what they *think* all those red-state yokels are like. A few of the things that raise warning flags:
* Everyone interviewed had the same point of view (there doesn't seem to be even an attempt to get a quote from "the other side");
* There is no quantification at all (how many people of the 137 in Ft Worth complained? The NYT, oddly, doesn't tell us.)
*The story notes, about the film "Volcanoes": "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." So that raises the question -- if it WAS good, then would she have run it? And if so, doesn't that make the whole religious angle moot?
Etc. I agree with an earlier poster -- these stories just ring true to a certain subset of/. users, because they confirm their pre-set worldviews. The fundies are taking over! BusHitler! TalibafghanistCreationis GACK!!
" Ignorant fundamentalists shouldn't have any power over what is available for the rest of the country to see"
They don't.
"...if they were stopping it from being shown"
They're not.
If the facts in this case are as everyone seems to believe*, then your anger is more properly directed at the IMAX folks.
- Alaska Jack
* And I have a hard time believing that they are. I agree with the very few posters in this thread who noted that the whole thing seems fishy. (How many people objected? NYT doesn't say. Why exactly is IMAX caving to a tiny fringe? NYT doesn't say. Etc.)
"My only hope for the science in this country is that someone in the government will realize that we should spend money on education instead of war"
Just wanted to point out that if you count all levels of government -- which makes sense, particularly since education in the U.S. is a local function -- the U.S. spends FAR more on education than it does on defense. It's not even close.
I think people should heed your words. You obviously know a thing or two about being "batshit loco."
- Alaska Jack
PS This part was funny: "The Founding Fathers would be proud at this emerging christian police state." It's funny because it can be read as serious or as sarcasm, and is equally incoherent either way.
PPS Insightful? Man, these religious discussions on Slashdot sure bring out the looneybirds.
This is possibly the worst-modded discussion I have ever seen on Slashdot. The most ridiculous, ranting BS gets labeled "Insightful", and this post, how can it possibly be considered a "troll"?
I guess I don't understand slashdot. The USA turning into Afghanistan West? How could this possibly be moderated as "insightful"?
- Alaska Jack
PS I'm no fundamentalist. I just appreciate that irony in the fact that threads like this on/. bring out a whole flock of loonybirds, all intent on proclaiming what loonybirds those OTHER guys are.
I have no doubt you sincerely believe everything you just wrote. However, in the spirit of helping out a fellow human being, I should let you know that most of it is simply wrong: A classic case of believing what you want to believe.
Here are the facts (keep in mind that all this has nothing to do with Kyoto):
1. The air and water in the U.S. are cleaner than they were when Bush took office in 2000. In 2000 they were cleaner than they were in 1990. In 1990, they were cleaner than they were in 1980.
2. This trend is continuing, and there is nothing to suggest it won't continue.
3. The "Clear Skies" initiation you deride uses the same type of market caps that Kyoto would use (as opposed to a centralized command-and-control-based scheme). The idea is that you lower the *overall* amount an industry is allowed to pollute, then let companies trade credits to make it happen.
4. Try reading this story in the very liberal Washington Monthly. One key passage:
"The entrenched opposition of green groups was strategic in part -- rather than acknowledge the benefits of Clear Skies, key environmental leaders chose to attack the administration's bill in hopes of securing a 'concession' on carbon dioxide restrictions. Politicians, less-savvy advocates, and rank-and-file supporters followed suit, without much of an idea of what Clear Skies would and would not do."
Another:
"Ultimately, the environmental movement's intense pressure to hold ranks --- call it the thin green line --- precluded honest debate about Clear Skies."
It's probably futile, but I hope reading this article will lead you to re-examine your own position. Perhaps you are allowing your dislike of the Bush administration to blind you to some important realities.
You may also be interested in just about anything by Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western and guest writer for National Review Online. He is to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. what the Amazing Randi was to Uri Geller. However, he is a libertarian/conservative, so YMMV.
You know, I was getting all ready to point out how wrong you are on this, but really, what's the point? I mean, if in two minutes of Googling I can find a dozen different cases of non-Americans warning of Saddam's WMDs, surely you can too.
It does make me wonder, though. I mean, don't you have a little voice that tells you "Hmm, maybe I better check my confident assertations before I potentially make myself look like a fool in front of thousands of people?"
The definitive account of Saddam's WMD maneuvering is "The Threatening Storm," by Clinton's former defense advisor Ken Pollack. But I don't suggest you read it. I mean, no one else here has, and that doesn't stop THEM from spouting off, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought they should just do away with charging for postage costs. Just have the seller name a minimum bid he or she is willing to accept, one which incorporates the shipping cost already.
- AJ
Yeah, but the thing is, in this case it's the difference between the outside air and the inside air.
Like right now, it's an awesome 60 degrees outside, and 80 degrees in here!
- AJ
Interesting! It's true that I do have one side of the house that directly catches the sun's rays at the end of the day. Although it is white (metal siding), so I guess I am a little surprised that this would happen.
The roof of the house has eaves that overhang each side. Your comment makes me wonder if I could just hang a tarp off the eave on the west side, thus shading that wall. Hmmm, maybe I will experiment with that.
- AJ
PS Right now, almost 11 p.m., the sun is just sinking over the horizon. Outside it is a perfect, beautiful 60 degrees, and inside -- 80!
I rent a very small, one-story house. It used to get SO hot in the evenings -- much hotter than outside, and opening the windows just didn't seem to help much.
(As an aside, why is this? How can the temperature continue to climb after the sun goes down? I never really figured that out. My guess is that the air in the attic was superheated, and as it cooled at night would slowly come down out of there. But I digress.)
So I was out watering the lawn one day and out of curiousity pointed my hose up on to the roof. The water came out of the hose very cold, and came off the roof as hot as a very hot shower.
So I got one of those self-irrigating garden hoses and ran it right along the crest of my roof. Now when it gets hot I just turn the hose on. It works OK, though not as well as I had hoped. Plus it's kind of nice to sit in my house with the sound of rain falling all around me in the background.
- Alaska Jack
Interesting point. If I had mod points (and wasn't the thread originator) I'd give you some.
... a case of ... becoming the ultimate mammoth-killing experts." But since humans were likely the *only* things capable of regularly taking down mammoth, in that sense one *could* consider them the "ultimate mammoth-killing experts." Also, the greatest food source later available to Eskimos was the whale. Whale hunting became practically the centerpiece of their culture (both Yup'ik and Inupiaq). It could very well have been similar with mammoth, with the difference being it would have been a lot easier to track and find all the mammoth than it was to find whales.
I do have one very very minor quibble. Well, maybe not even a quibble, just a comment. You say "With humans it's not
Anyway, again, good comment.
- AJ
Well, you're certainly basically correct. The Yup'ik Eskimos of Alaska (don't know about the Inupiaq) have a delicacy that basically translates to "stinky heads." What you do is you take all your cut-off fish heads, put them in a bag, and bury them. A month or two later, you dig them up, take them out of the bag, and -- urk -- eat them. Yum!
[Several Eskimos were killed, in the 1960s and 1970s as I recall, in stinky-head related incidents. What happened was, they buried the fish in plastic bags or similar non-draining containers. The heads thus developed botulism contamination.]
On the other hand, what they did with the fish *bodies* was mostly dry them. So once again an aboriginal group shows that even relatively primitive cultures were marvelously flexible and adaptable when it came to using available resources.
- Alaska Jack
Hmm. I know a relatively famous (in his field, at least) paleoanthropologist,and was just talking to him about this very thing. I asked him his thoughts about the two competing theories of large animal extinction.
He said that while it was currently fashionable to blame the climate and exonerate aboriginal hunters, he said it makes perfect sense that it was probably a combination of the two.
We modern humans have a definite tendency to underestimate the intelligence, resourcefulness and persistence of our forebears. A good example of this is all the mysticism and voodoo crackpot theories of how Stonehenge, the pyramids, etc. were built. The fact is that ancient people were quite -- sometimes ingeniously -- resourceful at accomplishing what they wanted to do.
Along that same vein, I have no doubt that they became quite expert at killing such things as mammoths, which would feed a whole clan for months (esp. if you dry some of the meat, etc) and provide ivory, bone and fur besides. Mammoth hunting would also have been a great opportunity for clan members to show their skills, bravery and dedication to the tribe -- something of great importance in many aboriginal societies.
Paleoanthropologists are a pretty interesting bunch to talk to.
- Alaska Jack
The hydrogen pellet is peaceful! It has no weapons! I'LL TELL YOU WHERE THE REBEL BASE IS!!
Is this a joke? Seriously, I can't tell if this is supposed to be satire. The reason I ask is, of course ... it is UTTERLY LOONEY.
I mean, geez, there are multiple holes in every single sentence. Where to begin?
1. We have detailed plans for invading every country, including Canada. It's called "Deliberate Planning" (as opposed to "Crisis Action Planning").
2. It's one of the jobs of the Defense Department to develop those plans. Any Defense Department that did *not* develop those plans for a country as volatile and strategically important as Iraq should immediately have everyone sacked for grevious dereliction of duty.
3. " A decade later, they return to their old offices" seems like a pretty convoluted way to avoid mentioning they won an election.
4. "A few months later, a Pearl Harbor scale event occurs" An event that, of course, we now know had been planned and organized during the reign of the *previous* administration.
5. In fact, the official U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq was put forth by that previous administration, in 1998.
OK, enough of this. Just remember -- I'm trying to *help* you.
- Alaska Jack
Apple has a history of taking existing but fringe technologies and making them mainstream. I thought, in keeping with this, that the next revision of the iMac would keep the swing-arm structure, but add the ability to rotate the screen to portrait mode.
Don't get me wrong, the new iMacs are cool, but I would have liked to see the rotating monitor become mainstream.
- AJ
I don't know why you feel the need to be so sensible about it. No one else in this discussion does.
- AJ
1. Relevance of League of Decency to current discussion: Zero
2. Brave words, O Anonymous Coward.
- AJ
Jeesh, where to begin.
1. Even Prof. Brotherton, whose post I critiqued, didn't feel the need to tell me to STFU. Seriously -- is that how you talk to complete strangers? Isn't that kind of weird?
2. Remember, "they" are the supposedly newly-influential religious fundamentalists. Fundies aren't the reason we have broadcast standards. (Why would fundies want to come down on Stern but leave Oprah off the hook, anyway? Wouldn't they want to come down on Oprah *more*, because they're racist and sexist hicks?) The reason we have broadcast standards is because *most everyone* wants them (and always have, as you yourself note). The only way your argument can get around this is if you define most EVERYONE as fundamentalist.
3. If you're going to be insulting, couldn't you at least be original or clever?
- Alaska Jack
Boy, this really puts the F in RTFA.
9 97119
Seriously. I have no idea what you're talking about. I just read the article again (both pages) and can't find anything like what you just wrote.
Here's a hint. Do a search in the article for the word "boycott." Notice how it doesn't appear in the article anywhere? Now try to square that with what you wrote.
See here for more thoughts: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=143152&cid=11
- Alaska Jack
You put in some late nights, Prof. Brotherton!
/.ers overlook is that, in relation to the entire U.S., these sorts of things are statistically insignificant. They get so much media attention specifically because they're aberations.
"Ignorant fundamentalists certainly do have some power over what is available to the rest of the country. They stack school boards, for instance,"
1. school boards are local, and have no "power over what is available to the rest of the country."
2. There is a certain set of tradeoffs with local control. Half of local school boards will be below average. A few will be disastrous. It's the nature of the beast.
3. "in an effort to push Creationism and have had some successes in recent years." I certainly oppose this kind of thing. However, what I think a lot of
4. I still think the IMAX people need to show a little backbone. Come on boys, this is the big leagues -- are you going to play or not?
5. Hey, if anyone around here is going to argue against a good buzz, it ain't gonna be me.
6. I've only had this happen a few times, and each time they've been very polite and left when I told them I wasn't interested. But I could see how it would get annoying if they came around a lot. Have you considered putting up a sign?
Cheers,
- Alaska Jack
1. I'm no fundamentalist
/. discussion I've ever read. Stupid little rants and gratuitous religion-bashing are being modded as "insightful" and even "informative." Come on, moderators: The system doesn't exist so you can go "Right on dude! Religion sucks!" and click "insightful."
/. users, because they confirm their pre-set worldviews. The fundies are taking over! BusHitler! TalibafghanistCreationis GACK!!
2. This is perhaps the worst-modded
3. If this story is legit -- and I'm not at all sure that it is -- the villains aren't the fundies. The villains are the theater managers. TFA doesn't mention any actual protests -- just the *fear* of protests.
4. Like a few other brave souls in this discussion, I find the story pretty fishy. It reads like a pretty typical liberal alarmist, NYT view of what they *think* all those red-state yokels are like. A few of the things that raise warning flags:
* Everyone interviewed had the same point of view (there doesn't seem to be even an attempt to get a quote from "the other side");
* There is no quantification at all (how many people of the 137 in Ft Worth complained? The NYT, oddly, doesn't tell us.)
*The story notes, about the film "Volcanoes": "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." So that raises the question -- if it WAS good, then would she have run it? And if so, doesn't that make the whole religious angle moot?
Etc. I agree with an earlier poster -- these stories just ring true to a certain subset of
- Alaska Jack
Prof. Brotherton -
" Ignorant fundamentalists shouldn't have any power over what is available for the rest of the country to see"
They don't.
"...if they were stopping it from being shown"
They're not.
If the facts in this case are as everyone seems to believe*, then your anger is more properly directed at the IMAX folks.
- Alaska Jack
* And I have a hard time believing that they are. I agree with the very few posters in this thread who noted that the whole thing seems fishy. (How many people objected? NYT doesn't say. Why exactly is IMAX caving to a tiny fringe? NYT doesn't say. Etc.)
Moderators:
A gentle reminder: You're supposed to mod up posts that are actually, you know, *informative* or *insightful*.
Just trying to help,
- Alaska Jack
"My only hope for the science in this country is that someone in the government will realize that we should spend money on education instead of war"
Just wanted to point out that if you count all levels of government -- which makes sense, particularly since education in the U.S. is a local function -- the U.S. spends FAR more on education than it does on defense. It's not even close.
- Alaska Jack
I think people should heed your words. You obviously know a thing or two about being "batshit loco."
- Alaska Jack
PS This part was funny: "The Founding Fathers would be proud at this emerging christian police state." It's funny because it can be read as serious or as sarcasm, and is equally incoherent either way.
PPS Insightful? Man, these religious discussions on Slashdot sure bring out the looneybirds.
This is possibly the worst-modded discussion I have ever seen on Slashdot. The most ridiculous, ranting BS gets labeled "Insightful", and this post, how can it possibly be considered a "troll"?
Sorry I don't have any mod points, buddy.
- Alaska Jack
I guess I don't understand slashdot. The USA turning into Afghanistan West? How could this possibly be moderated as "insightful"?
/. bring out a whole flock of loonybirds, all intent on proclaiming what loonybirds those OTHER guys are.
- Alaska Jack
PS I'm no fundamentalist. I just appreciate that irony in the fact that threads like this on
In my previous reply, like an idiot I forgot to include the link to the Washington Monthly article. It is here:
0 41 2.whitman.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/
- Alaska Jack
I have no doubt you sincerely believe everything you just wrote. However, in the spirit of helping out a fellow human being, I should let you know that most of it is simply wrong: A classic case of believing what you want to believe.
Here are the facts (keep in mind that all this has nothing to do with Kyoto):
1. The air and water in the U.S. are cleaner than they were when Bush took office in 2000. In 2000 they were cleaner than they were in 1990. In 1990, they were cleaner than they were in 1980.
2. This trend is continuing, and there is nothing to suggest it won't continue.
3. The "Clear Skies" initiation you deride uses the same type of market caps that Kyoto would use (as opposed to a centralized command-and-control-based scheme). The idea is that you lower the *overall* amount an industry is allowed to pollute, then let companies trade credits to make it happen.
4. Try reading this story in the very liberal Washington Monthly. One key passage:
"The entrenched opposition of green groups was strategic in part -- rather than acknowledge the benefits of Clear Skies, key environmental leaders chose to attack the administration's bill in hopes of securing a 'concession' on carbon dioxide restrictions. Politicians, less-savvy advocates, and rank-and-file supporters followed suit, without much of an idea of what Clear Skies would and would not do."
Another:
"Ultimately, the environmental movement's intense pressure to hold ranks --- call it the thin green line --- precluded honest debate about Clear Skies."
It's probably futile, but I hope reading this article will lead you to re-examine your own position. Perhaps you are allowing your dislike of the Bush administration to blind you to some important realities.
You may also be interested in just about anything by Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western and guest writer for National Review Online. He is to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. what the Amazing Randi was to Uri Geller. However, he is a libertarian/conservative, so YMMV.
- Alaska Jack
You know, I was getting all ready to point out how wrong you are on this, but really, what's the point? I mean, if in two minutes of Googling I can find a dozen different cases of non-Americans warning of Saddam's WMDs, surely you can too.
It does make me wonder, though. I mean, don't you have a little voice that tells you "Hmm, maybe I better check my confident assertations before I potentially make myself look like a fool in front of thousands of people?"
The definitive account of Saddam's WMD maneuvering is "The Threatening Storm," by Clinton's former defense advisor Ken Pollack. But I don't suggest you read it. I mean, no one else here has, and that doesn't stop THEM from spouting off, either.
- Alaska Jack