text:
Dean H. Kenyon

Dean H. Kenyon (born c. 1939) is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist, and one of the founders of the intelligent design movement. He is the author of Biochemical Predestination.

He became a creationist around 1976, and gave testimony defending creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard court cases. During the latter case, he co-authored the creation science supplementary textbook Of Pandas and People. The case decision went against teaching creation science in public schools, and the authors then altered all references to creationism to refer to intelligent design before the book was published in 1989. He subsequently became a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, and continued to endorse young Earth creationism.

Career
Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965–1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a research associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an assistant professor of biology at San Francisco State University and became emeritus in 2001.

In 1969, Kenyon co-authored Biochemical Predestination with Gary Steinman. Chemist Stephen Berry explained Kenyon's and Steinman's theory as "describing the following causal chain: the properties of the chemical elements dictate the types of monomers that can be formed in prebiotic syntheses, which then dictate the properties of the occurring polymers, which finally dictate the properties of the first eobionts and all succeeding cells." Kenyon's work was about virus production.

During the 1969–1970 academic year he was "on a fellowship at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, where he reviewed the contemporary literature on the relationship of science and religion." Then in 1974, he was a visiting scholar to Trinity College, Oxford.

Kenyon states that his views changed around 1976 after exposure to the work of young Earth creationists:

"Then in 1976, a student gave me a book by A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. Many pages of that book deal with arguments against Biochemical Predestination, and I found myself hard-pressed to come up with a counter-rebuttal. Eventually, several other books and articles by neo-creationists came to my attention.  I read some of Henry Morris' books, in particular, The Genesis Flood.  I'm not a geologist, and I don't agree with everything in that book, but what stood out was that here was a scientific statement giving a very different view of earth history.  Though the book doesn't deal with the subject of the origin of life per se, it had the effect of suggesting that it is possible to have a rational alternative explanation of the past."

In 1980, the San Francisco State University Department of Biology had a dispute over Kenyon's presentation of creationism, then called "scientific creationism" in Biology module 337 Evolution. At that time, Kenyon challenged anyone on the faculty to a debate on the merits of evolutionary theory versus "scientific creationism." According to SFSU biology professor John Hafernik, "There was much discussion in faculty meetings as well. Eventually the faculty voted (none opposed, seven abstentions) not to alter the description of Biology 337 to include creationism.  The precedent set, in the context of the 1980 discussions, was that the Department did not support teaching creationism."

Court cases
Kenyon was recruited as an expert in two notable cases about "creation science" during the 1980s.

McLean v. Arkansas
In 1981, Kenyon was recruited to be an expert witness for the creationist side in the McLean v. Arkansas case that tested the constitutionality of Arkansas' Equal Time Legislation that mandated equal time for "creation science" and "evolution science". Kenyon flew to Arkansas to be deposed and testify during the trial. However, apparently under the influence of creationist attorney Wendell Bird (who was displeased with the defense of the creationist position by the Arkansas attorney general Steve Clark), Kenyon left town just before he was to testify:

"The attorney general presented six science witnesses, two more than had testified for the ACLU, presumably on the grounds that quantity made up for evident lack of quality. There would have been more had not a serious case of disappearing witnesses set in as the second week wore on. Dean Kenyon, a biologist from San Francisco State University, fled town after watching the demolition of four of the state's witnesses on day 1 of the second week. And Henry Voss, a computer scientist from California, was rapidly withdrawn at the last minute when, in pretrial deposition, he too began to expound on things satanic and demonical."

The Arkansas attorney general apparently threatened to sue Bird after this interference:

There were other witnesses for the defense who did not show up. Several scientists who had been listed as potential witnesses for the state, backed out because of what Clark termed "peer pressure."

Another state witness, Dr. Dean Kenyon, a biophysicist at San Francisco State University, mysteriously disappeared on the eve of his day in court. He had flown into Little Rock on a Sunday evening, but when one of Clark's assistants went to take his deposition he could not find him. Kenyon had checked out of the hotel and flown back home. Bird had encouraged Kenyon not to testify, although Kenyon taught evolution theory for 16 years until three years ago when he became a creationist. Bird, who is general counsel to Institute for Creation Research, said he attempted to get other defense witnesses not to testify after he perceived the trial as botched by Clark.

Bird said he was not trying to sabotage Clark's effort. He said he merely had told several witnesses for the state that "I don't think you should jeopardize your reputation with the way [the trial] is being handled." Clark stated he was considering legal action against Bird, whose actions, he said, were "tantamount to tampering with justice."

Edwards v. Aguillard
Following the McLean ruling, which declared the teaching of "creation science" in public schools to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion, Louisiana's version of the "Equal Time" legislation was put to the test. This time, Wendell Bird was deputized by the state and ran the state's defense of the law. Dean Kenyon was advertised as the creationists' lead expert witness, however the case (which eventually became Edwards v. Aguillard when it reached the Supreme Court) was decided by summary judgment, and so never went to a full trial. Nevertheless, in written briefs and in his oral arguments, Bird relied heavily on an expert witness affidavit written by Kenyon. This affidavit is online at the TalkOrigins website. It was entered into evidence in the Kitzmiller case as evidence that Kenyon was explicitly defending "creation science"—and advocating that it be given equal time in public schools and textbooks as the "only" alternative to evolution—while at the same time working on a public school textbook, which eventually became the first "intelligent design" book, Of Pandas and People.

In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court heard a case concerning a Louisiana Law that required "creation science" be taught on an equal basis with evolution in public schools. Anti-creationists argued that this was illegal on the basis that it violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Kenyon issued an affidavit in that case, stating his support for creationism, and defining it thus:

"Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. (...) Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."

Recent work
During the Edwards v. Aguillard case, Kenyon was co-authoring with Percival Davis, a creationist school textbook entitled Of Pandas and People, which was published in 1989. After the Edwards decision, all references to "creationism" were replaced with "intelligent design", with a reference to "creationists" being replaced by "design proponents". In the history of creationism, this is the origin of the term intelligent design and the link between creationism and intelligent design.

In October 1992, Kenyon was told by the chair of the SFSU Biology Department to stop teaching creationism in introductory biology courses. He had been teaching creationism and intelligent design "for more than ten years," which received complaints from students and some faculty. Following the Chair's request, the faculty came out in support of Kenyon's academic freedom and ability to teach what he wanted without administration controlling topics. After a hearing, Kenyon "won the right to teach his iconoclastic view of the evolution of life." Kenyon claimed objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science.

Following the controversy, Kenyon entered talks with what became the Discovery Institute, including Stephen C. Meyer, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski and Michael Behe. He then became a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, which he remains today. The Institute is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. In Winter 1996, Kenyon's co-authored paper, "The RNA World: A Critique," appeared in Origins and Design, a now defunct creationist journal where he was on the Editorial Advisory Board. He continued publicly arguing in favor of creationism, notably at the 1998 International Conference on Creationism. Currently, Kenyon is a speaker, writer, and board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group. In 2008, Kenyon endorsed a young Earth creationist book promoted by the Center.

Works by Kenyon

 * Kenyon DH, Steinman G. Biochemical Predestination. McGraw Hill Text (1969) ISBN 0-07-034126-5.
 * Davis PW, Kenyon DH. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Foundation for Thought & Ethics; 2nd edition (1993) ISBN 0-914513-40-0.
 * Steinman G, Kenyon DH, Calvin M. The mechanism and protobiochemical relevance of dicyanamide-medicated peptide synthesis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1966 Aug 24;124(2):339–50.
 * Smith AE, Kenyon DH. Is life originating de novo? Perspect Biol Med. 1972 Summer;15(4):529–42.
 * Smith AE, Kenyon DH. The origin of viruses from cellular genetic material. Enzymologia. 1972 Jul 31;43(1):13–18.
 * Smith AE, Kenyon DH. A unifying concept of carcinogenesis and its therapeutic implications. Oncology. 1973;27(5):459–79.
 * Smith AE, Kenyon DH. Acupuncture and A.T.P.: how they may be related. Am J Chin Med (Garden City). 1973 Jan;1(1):91–17.
 * Kenyon DH. On terminology in origin of life studies. Orig Life. 1975 Jul;6(3):447–49.
 * Nissenbaum A, Kenyon DH, Oro J. On the possible role of organic melanoidin polymers as matrices for prebiotic activity. J Mol Evol. 1975 Dec 29;6(4):253–70.
 * Kenyon DH, Nissenbaum A. Melanoidin and aldocyanoin microspheres: implications for chemical evolution and early precambrian micropaleontology. J Mol Evol. 1976 Apr 9;7(3):245–51.

title: Dean H. Kenyon


text: User talk:207.154.91.254

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:207.154.91.254


text: User talk:Reinder Dijkhuis

title: User talk:Reinder Dijkhuis


text:
1983 British Airways Helicopters Sikorsky S-61 crash

On 16 July 1983 a British Airways Helicopters commercial Sikorsky S-61 helicopter, Oscar November (G-BEON), crashed in the southern Celtic Sea, in the Atlantic Ocean, while en route from Penzance to St Mary's, Isles of Scilly in poor visibility. Only six of the twenty-six people on board survived. It was Britain's worst helicopter civil aviation accident at the time.

An investigation was promptly carried out by the Accidents Investigation Branch (AIB), though calls for a public inquiry were dismissed. The AIB found that the accident was caused by pilot error, in failing to notice and correct an unintentional descent when attempting to fly at low altitude in poor visibility. Other contributory factors were found to be a failure to monitor flight instruments adequately, and a lack of audio height warning equipment.

The crash sparked a review of helicopter safety, and eight recommendations were made by the AIB. Of these, seven were adopted, most notably that it was mandatory for there to be audible height warnings on passenger helicopters operating off-shore. It remained the worst British civilian helicopter accident until 1986, when the Boeing 234LR Chinook helicopter G-BWFC crashed in the North Sea, with 45 fatalities.

Background
The Sikorsky S-61N helicopter Oscar November (registered G-BEON) was owned by British Airways Helicopters, configured to seat 24 passengers, and typically operated between Aberdeen and the oil platforms of the North Sea. On 24 June 1983, Oscar November was assigned to act as a replacement for the British Airways Helicopters commercial passenger service between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly. The helicopter that usually operated the service, a Sikorsky S-61NM fitted with 32 passenger seats, was out of action while it was being repaired. On 3 July 1983, Oscar November received its annual certificate of airworthiness. Manufactured in 1977, Oscar November's airframe had flown a total of 7,904 hours, 49 of which had been since the last certificate of airworthiness.

The crew consisted of pilots Captain Dominic Lawlor (37 years old) and Captain Neil Charleton (30), along with cabin attendant Robin Lander (22). Lawlor was designated as the commander for the flight, while Charleton acted as co-pilot. Lawlor had flown a total of 3,970 pilot hours prior to the flight, of which 2,820 had been in an S-61N helicopter, and although he was based in Aberdeen, he had flown the Penzance–St Mary's route over 50 times before. Charleton was based in Beccles, but had also flown the route before, over 100 times. He had a total of 3,737 pilot hours, of which 2,280 had been in an S-61N. The 20-minute Penzance–St Mary's route was flown regularly during the summer; with 12 scheduled return flights running six days a week.

Flight
Oscar November was one of two flights scheduled to fly from Penzance Heliport to St Mary's Airport on the Isles of Scilly on the morning of 16 July; the other was G-BDDA (Delta Alpha), another S-61 helicopter. Delta Alpha had been scheduled to depart at 7:50am(GMT), while Oscar November was due to leave at 8:15am, but both flights were delayed by poor visibility. The weather forecast from the Plymouth Meteorological Office that morning warned of fog from 7:00am until 5:00pm, with visibility typically between 1 - 4 km, but as low as 100 m in fog banks. The actual visibility recorded at St Mary's Aerodrome increased from 1.2 km at 9:30am to 2.2 km by 11:30am. Delta Alpha departed at 10:46am, and landed at St Mary's at 11:06am. With the possibility of the weather worsening, Lawlor waited for confirmation that Delta Alpha had landed and flown the entire journey according to visual flight rules (VFR). The minimum requirements to conduct a VFR flight were 900 m of visibility, with a cloud ceiling of 200 ft. Having received confirmation, Oscar November departed Penzance at roughly 11:10am, with 23 passengers on board, on flight BA 5918.

Oscar November climbed to a height of 2000 ft, and as they passed by Longships Lighthouse, about 1.25 miles off the coast of Land's End, the visibility was recorded as being between 0.5 and 0.75 nmi. During the investigation into the crash, Lawlor and Charleton reported that they received a verbal weather report from the crew of Delta Alpha, who were passing on their return flight. According to the pair, they were told that visibility was 0.5 to 0.75 nmi at 300 ft. However, the crew of Delta Alpha did not recall talking to the Oscar November crew at any time during their flight. Based on this information, which he interpreted to mean that the cloud base was at 300 feet, Lawlor descended to 500 ft, to be able to analyse the situation better on their approach. For his part, Charleton had interpreted the message differently, believing that 300 feet had referred to the height at which Delta Alpha had been when they made the observations, but the pair did not discuss the report.

At 11:30am, Charleton communicated with St Mary's, indicating that they were level at 500 feet, and were halfway through their crossing. They maintained good visibility with the sea below them, and although haze limited their forward visibility so that they could not see the horizon, they were confident it was in excess of the VFR minimum of 900 metres. Roughly 6 nmi from St Mary's, Lawlor began to descend to 250 ft, the minimum height permitted, as he expected the cloud base to be at 300 feet. Both pilots confirmed with their instruments when that height had been attained, and thereafter Charleton concentrated on his radar and communicating with St Mary's. Lawlor then reduced speed, during which the vertical gyro indicator gave a brief warning of an attitude failure; however Lawlor checked the instruments, which appeared normal. Confident that the weather had improved, Lawlor stopped monitoring his instruments, and flew by visual aids only.

Crash
At roughly 11:35am, following a string of communication between Charleton and St Mary's, the last message was sent from the aerodrome; "Oscar November is clear to land 300 degrees at 5 knots." When Oscar November was roughly 1.5 nmi from the coast, the helicopter crashed, hitting the sea three successive times. Both Lawlor and Charleton thought that the aircraft was still at 250 feet, though one of the passengers, Lucille Langley-Williams, said that the cabin attendant had told her they were flying at around 100 ft shortly before the crash. The Sikorsky S-61 was fitted with floats on either side, known as "sponsons", and the base was designed to be like the hull of a boat, so that the helicopter could float. However, the heavy impact broke both sponsons off and broke the floor, letting water into the helicopter. Lacking the stability that the sponsons would provide, the fuselage rolled over, letting water in even quicker, and sank.

Only 6 of the 26 people on board escaped from the helicopter; Lawlor exited through the emergency exit window by his seat, while Charleton and a child got out through the forward freight bay. Another child managed to escape via the rear freight bay, and two adults exited through the starboard airstairs door. In addition to the two pilots, the survivors were Howard Goddard (age 12), Ellen Hanslow (15), Lucille Langley-Williams and Megan Smith (both 60). Ellen spotted Goddard struggling in the water, and she swam to help him. None of the six had managed to retrieve a life jacket, and so the two pilots gathered the survivors together, and helped keep them afloat, using suitcases as flotation aids. The incident was the worst civilian helicopter crash in the United Kingdom since 1981, when eleven oil workers and both pilots died in the 1981 Bristow Helicopters Westland Wessex crash.

Rescue
Roughly ten minutes after the last communication between Oscar November and air traffic control at St Mary's, air traffic control requested that the St Mary's lifeboat be launched. Shortly thereafter, they also contacted RNAS Culdrose that Oscar November was overdue, and requested that the search and rescue helicopters be put on stand-by. The lifeboat, RNLB Robert Edgar, launched around midday, around the same time as the search and rescue helicopter was scrambled from Culdrose. The Navy's Westland Wessex helicopter arrived at the accident site first, but lacking sufficient information to pinpoint the crash location, and with fog banks still around, the pilot landed at St Mary's for more information. Langley-Williams said that at one point, the helicopter had been right above them, but unable to see them in the fog.

Around this time, the Robert Edgar arrived at the accident site, which it was able to identify by the smell of aircraft fuel. The lifeboat crew spotted and rescued the six survivors, who had been in the water for around an hour, and began looking for any others. A second Navy helicopter, a Westland Sea King, arrived around 1:00pm and was directed to the crash site by flares from the lifeboat, which returned to St Mary's with the survivors not long after. The crew of the Sea King helicopter spotted the sponsons floating in the water and dispatched a diver, who was later joined by the diver from the Wessex helicopter. The Wessex collected one of the survivors from St Mary's and transported her to Treliske Hospital in Truro. At 3:25pm, both divers were picked up from the water, and the Navy abandoned their search; the Sea King returned to Culdrose. David Harris, the Member of Parliament (MP) for St Ives, the constituency which contained both Penzance and the Isles of Scilly, praised the rescue, singling out Matt Lethbridge, the coxswain of the St Mary's lifeboat for particular commendation.

Recovery
On the evening of the crash, the MV Seaforth Clansman, a Royal Navy charter in Naval Party 1007, sailed from Falmouth with a crew of divers, arriving at the site that the survivors had been picked up at 10:10pm. The following morning, two inspectors from the Accidents Investigation Branch arrived with acoustic detectors that would allow them to locate the helicopter wreckage using its underwater locator beacon. It took until 6:00pm that evening to get an accurate position for the helicopter, but sea conditions meant that they could not commence diving until early the following morning. The divers located the helicopter fuselage at 9:10pm. The fuselage was lying on its side on the seabed, 200 ft below the surface on a steep dune.

At around 12:00pm on 19 July, the helicopter was lifted out of the sea and onto Seaforth Clansman's deck. Bodies of only 17 of the 20 missing people were found in the wreckage; 2 passengers and Lander, the cabin attendant, were not recovered. The Seaforth Clansman and the Penlee lifeboat RNLB Mabel Alice brought the wreckage and the bodies to Penzance.

The aircraft had lost its nose-cone and sponsons. The starboard sponson was damaged but retained its capacity to float; the port was undamaged and failed to float. Three of the five main blades had been sheared off, along with the rear rotor blades. The cabin was badly damaged. The port-side escape windows were missing.

Investigation
Two days after the incident, during a discussion in Parliament, Robert Hughes, Labour MP for Aberdeen North, called for a public inquiry into the safety record of Sikorsky helicopters, citing that there had been over 400 "notifiable occurrences" involving the Sikorsky S-61. The Secretary of State for Transport, Tom King, referred to the previous excellent safety record of the helicopter, which had not been involved in a fatal incident in the United Kingdom for ten years, and said that he had full confidence in the Accidents Investigation Branch investigation. From Penzance, the fuselage was transported by road to the Accidents Investigation Branch at Farnborough, Hampshire for investigation. An article in The Times initial speculated that the helicopter could have flown into a flock of seagulls, after mutilated bird corpses were found near the scene, or suffered a mechanical failure. Lynda King Taylor, a reporter who flew over to the Isles of Scilly around the same time as the crash reported that on her British Airways Helicopters flight there had been a number of safety shortcomings; her passenger ticket did not have her name on it, the safety announcement was inaudible amid the noise generated by the helicopter, there was no safety leaflet at her seat, passengers were allowed to walk around the helicopter even when the seatbelt sign was illuminated, and the locations of the emergency exits were not highlighted to passengers. These issues were contested by British Airways Helicopters, and along with the theories about the seagulls and a mechanical failure, none were found to have caused the crash or the high loss of life in the Accidents Investigation Branch report. The preliminary report was published by the AIB on 4 August 1983, and the final report was released in March 1985.

Cause
The AIB investigation was carried out by one of their investigators, D. A. Cooper. He concluded that the helicopter was mechanically fine, and that the accident had been a collision during "controlled flight", rather than a ditching. He found that the cause was pilot error, specifically that Lawlor did not notice and remedy an "unintentional descent" while intending to fly at 250 ft. The report noted that Lawlor was attempting to fly by visual reference while the visibility was both "poor and deceptive", though within the relevant guidelines. Cooper noted that the weather conditions were unsuitable for visual flight, and listed the minimum guidelines for visual flight in the operating procedures as a contributory factor in the crash, along with too little monitoring of flight instruments and a lack of an audio altitude warning. During the coroner's inquest, Lawlor admitted that he was partly to blame for the crash, admitting that his piloting "undoubtedly did play a part in the accident".

Twenty months before the flight, the British Airline Pilots' Association had recommended to the Civil Aviation Authority that weather minima for visual flights were unsatisfactory, but the recommendations were still being reviewed at the time of the flight. The minima listed in the British Airways Helicopters operating manual were similar to other helicopter operators, though Cooper noted that too much discretion was allowed to the flight crew regarding how much they monitored flight instruments during a visual flight.

Legacy
The Accident Investigation Branch made eight recommendations. The main recommendation from the report was for an audible height warning on passenger helicopters operating off-shore and for the altimeter to be moved nearer to the pilot's 'head-up field of vision'. Ground proximity warning systems had been made compulsory on passenger planes in 1977. The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority made it mandatory that audible ground proximity warning systems had to be installed in all passenger helicopters by August 1985. It was also recommended that the strength of both the passenger and attendant seats should be improved. All of the twin seats inside Oscar November sheared off, while the single seats remained fixed. The report suggested the weather minima for visual flight, and the related crew instrument monitoring procedures should be reviewed for helicopter flight, along with the specific altimeter and minimum runway visual range (distance a pilot can see while approaching a runway) rules for the Penzance–St Mary's route. In order to aid rescue efforts, it was further recommended that helicopters being used for public transport should be fitted with an automatically deployable survival radio beacon, and the pilots should wear lifejackets with dual frequency personal locator beacons.

The crash remained the deadliest helicopter incident in the United Kingdom until 1986, when a British International Helicopters Chinook crashed on approach to land at Sumburgh Airport in the Shetland Islands, killing 43 passengers and two crew members.


text: Category:Science and technology in Vietnam


text:
Denise Austin

Denise Austin (née Katnich; born February 13, 1957) is an American fitness instructor, author, and columnist, and a former member of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports.

Early life
Austin was born in San Pedro, Los Angeles, California. She started gymnastics at the age of 12, which led to an athletic scholarship at the University of Arizona.

Personal life
Denise is married to sports agent, and former tennis player Jeff Austin, brother of US Open champion Tracy Austin. They have been married since April 30, 1983, and have two daughters, Kelly (b. 1990) and Katie (b. 1993). Katie is a fitness instructor like her mother and has her own YouTube channel. As of 2012, the Austins resided in Alexandria, Virginia. In 2018, the Austins moved to Hermosa Beach, California.

Fitness career
Austin initially attended the University of Arizona on a gymnastics scholarship, reaching the rank of number 9 in the NCAA on balance beam. She later transferred to California State University, Long Beach, graduating with a bachelor's degree in physical education, and a minor in exercise physiology.

Since then, she has been teaching classes, producing fitness shows, creating exercise video tapes, and writing books and columns on exercise and staying fit. Examples include Shrink Your Female Fat Zones, Pilates for Every Body, and Eat Carbs, Lose Weight. In 2002, president George W. Bush named Austin as a member of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, and began her second term in 2006.

Austin promoted the Reebok Freestyle sneaker, which was the first athletic shoe designed for women, making it an instant hit in the gym in the 1980s. "I absolutely loved this time in my career, I was the first spokesperson for the very first aerobic shoe," Austin said in a November, 22, 2019 Facebook post.

Austin is known for her emphasis on staying fit naturally, emphasizing that she herself exercises only about 30 minutes a day and does not skip meals. She also prefers the use of sugar and butter over artificial sweeteners and margarine, though she does emphasize portion control, proper nutrient balance, and exercise. Austin supports a balanced program of exercise and proper diet, and encourages people to stay away from fad diets or "crazy claims" for quick fixes. Her exercise programs often integrate a variety of methods including yoga, pilates, cross training, and aerobic exercise.

Austin had a long-running exercise television program Getting Fit with Denise Austin on ESPN2, reruns of which can currently be seen on ESPN Classic and Altitude Sports and Entertainment. The show moved to weekday mornings on Lifetime Television, where it was renamed Fit and Lite and Denise Austin's Daily Workout. Austin produced these shows each fall, spending four months on location in resorts in the Caribbean and Arizona. Lifetime cancelled the shows in April 2008. Austin said she was developing a new TV show later that year. It was in the planning stages for 2010.

According to The Washington Post, Austin was headed back to Lifetime in January 2011. She is on the morning program The Balancing Act. Austin before had said on her website that she was getting a new show ready for debut in the fall of 2008, though the show did not debut. When she was interviewed by Erin Whitehead in 2009, it was reported her new show would be back on in the fall of that year. In April 2007 a Washington, DC alternative weekly newspaper called the Washington City Paper featured an article on Austin under their "Cheap Seats" column, where she was questioned about how some of her exercise shows on YouTube are like pornography to some people. Austin said that she was totally unaware. She also reportedly said, with a giggle, that she was worried about it.

Austin also made a cameo in the beginning of the movie Step Brothers (2008). She was sent a copy of the script and approved the scene.

title: Denise Austin


text: User talk:68.62.66.234

title: User talk:68.62.66.234


text:
User talk:Markus.t-nbg~enwiki

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Markus.t-nbg. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Markus.t-nbg~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Markus.t-nbg~enwiki


text: User talk:82.45.245.15

title: User talk:82.45.245.15


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list

{| width="100%" cellpadding="10" style="background:#FFF; border-style:solid; border-width:2px; border-color:#009;" ! colspan="2" style=" background:#039; color:white; font-size:20pt;" | PW Members List
 * colspan="2" | This is a list of members included in WikiProject Professional wrestling in alphabetical order. If you want the Pro Wrestling WikiProject userbox in your profile type in User WP PW, which will produce the following template below.
 * colspan="2" | This is a list of members included in WikiProject Professional wrestling in alphabetical order. If you want the Pro Wrestling WikiProject userbox in your profile type in User WP PW, which will produce the following template below.

 * colspan="2" style="border-top: 2px solid #039;" |
 * colspan="2" style="border-top: 2px solid #039;" |

Active members
To join, add your username in alphabetical order.

Inactive members
Users who have not edited in six months are listed here.


text:
Talk:EFF DES cracker

Book Link missing
The EFF documented their work in https://www.amazon.de/Cracking-Encryption-Electronic-Foundation-1998-07-11/dp/B01FKT85AW, but I fail to spot that link on this page. The book describes the machine, and contains the source for the chips. -- 5.57.21.129 (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Chips
What did the custom made chips do? Why didn't they use regular cpus for their tasks? --Abdull 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * General CPUs are much slower than dedicated custom processors, since they are designed to be flexible and generic. With a general CPU, you must issue several hundred instructions just to check one key before you can start the next one (ie: one key per several hundred clock cycles). With a custom processors, it will be limited to only running that specialized instruction, but it can have an entire processor pipeline set up to checking an entire key. Each stage of the pipeline would connect solely to the next stage of the key check, and several keys may be in progress simultaneously (ie: one key per few clock cycles, with many keys in the pipeline).-- Bovineone 01:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy
I seem to recall that EFF took some heat at the time from those who felt there were better uses for $250,000 than to demonstrate the vulnerability of an encryption standard already widely considered insecure. I don't want to add language to this effect in the article without a noteworthy citation, which I haven't found yet. Does anyone else recall this controversy? I think there was some crossover with those who felt Barlow took the group the wrong way on Digital Telephony.--Skyraider 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think there was that much controversy, just some slight skepticism here and there about whether the effort was worth it. I also don't have the sense that EFF paid the $250K out of membership dues and small donations, that might instead of have been used for something else. Rather, my impression is that one of the EFF's wealthy founders (JG) funded the project pretty much by himself, because he wanted to see it happen. Phr 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I read that it was several million keys per second, not billion. Also my friend's book stated $200,000 not $250,000. Someone with more resources should verify these numbers...
 * It was definitely billions of keys per second. The machine could search the whole 256=7×1016 keyspace in about a week, so that's around 1011 keys/sec. Phr (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of custom chips contradiction
There is a difference of 10x between the EFF DES cracker and Brute force attack image capations each indicating '1800' and '18,000' chips respectively. When searching 1800 appears to be the correct amount, but it would be good to confirm.--ShaunMacPherson 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When is it done
Q: If a machine tries 2^56 keys to decrypt a message, how does it know when it is done? It would have up to 2^56 output strings that would then need to be processed to see whether they seem like the message or gobbledegook.DouglasHeld 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * After each attempted decryption, the chip checks whether the decrypted plaintext matches the excepted plaintext. If yes, it has found the key, and the crack is over. So, searching the whole 256 keyspace actually takes 255 decryptions on average. -- intgr #%@! 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was no portion of plaintext available, then decryption would be impossible? The only solutions I can imagine is checking if words in decrypted message are in English dictionary, or trying to find a file format header in decrypted message. Thatadmit1 (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need for speculation here. The "Cracking DES" book does describe the possibilities built into the chips that allow to filter unlikely ciphertexts from potenially correct ones. 83.79.119.106 (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sun-4/470
Maybe there should be some reference to the machine being built in a Sun-4/470 chasis (VMEbus-based). A minor point, but perhaps of interest. Thanks. 75.142.145.210 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 1 under References.
The first URL appears to be a broken link. 75.142.145.210 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of chips/boards
I've seen numbers of anywhere from 24 to 27 boards at 64 chips/board. What is the source for 29? --Doctorhook (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on EFF DES cracker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170507231657/https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto/Crypto_misc/DESCracker/HTML/19980716_eff_des_faq.html to http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto/Crypto_misc/DESCracker/HTML/19980716_eff_des_faq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160316174007/https://www.cloudcracker.com/blog/2012/07/29/cracking-ms-chap-v2/ to https://www.cloudcracker.com/blog/2012/07/29/cracking-ms-chap-v2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170507231657/https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto/Crypto_misc/DESCracker/HTML/19980716_eff_des_faq.html to http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto/Crypto_misc/DESCracker/HTML/19980716_eff_des_faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:EFF DES cracker


text:
User:Taxman/BSD and Linux

BSD and Linux are two families of open-source computer operating systems. Both are classed as Unix-like because they have a kernel, internals, and libraries, programmed using algorithms and data structures derived from historic AT&T Unix. The most significant non-technical aspect of both families is their availability as free software.

The BSD and Linux families each consist of several to many distributions (distros). Each distribution is a specific operating system (OS), with a brand name known to the public through advertising or advocacy. Distributions are created or implemented by groups of software programmers known as developers, who can be paid professionals or volunteers, living anywhere in the world that has an Internet connection.

BSD and Linux distributions are selected by brand name and installed by a system administrator (admin), for the benefit of one or more users, who run or execute BSD or Linux application programs. The classification of BSD and Linux distros by installation packaging system, and the differences and issues of distro installations will be discussed in sections below.

A personal or small business computer owner may be both admin and user. As an admin, the owner may have to make a confusing set of choices about which operating system distribution will best suit their computing needs. Such choices exist infrequently for commercial Windows or Macintosh OS's. BSD and Linux distribution choices, however, can be overwhelming in number, and subtle in their differences and specialties. Distributions are sufficiently different that a careless choice can lead to lost productivity. Lost time and effort can result if the OS is used in a way that other users have not thoroughly tested, or if the new admin/user lacks the distro installation and configuration skills typically assumed by the community. Good advice is to choose a distribution that clusters new users with an existing user community doing the same type of computing at the same average skill level.

Scope

 * This article introduces new admin/users to the BSD and Linux experiences, especially as they may be unfamiliar from experiences installing and using the commercial operating systems of Major Software Windows and Apple Macintosh at home, school, and workplace.

 * This article intends to assist admin/users in either making a migration consumer or small business choice among the many BSD and Linux operating systems, or choosing to keep their current OS. (Medium and large businesses hire BSD or Linux admins who are not new users.)

 * Also this article attempts to clarify the general similarities and differences between BSD and Linux families, with specific differences highlighted by examples comparing distributions sampled from each family.

 * The creation of totally free BSD and Linux OS software costing over a billion dollars in person hours to develop commercially, raises totally new economic issues for existing software businesses, including "Major Software"* the world's largest corporation. Will Major Software's patents crush Linux development just when it gets really popular? Will BSD developers cut a deal with Major Software to avoid a software patent lawsuit? Will BSD developers agree to charge for every copy of BSD? And will that be the end of free software? (*The purpose of this obvious alias is to hide out from search engines, and help prevent this article from becoming about Major Software instead of BSD and Linux)

 * Finally, this article attempts to parse the phenomenon of OS advocacy by explaining it, describing the problems it causes, and neutrally summarizing the user group positions of pro and con issue advocates.

Readers are assumed to have previously used computer applications such as browsers and word processors, and to have installed, reinstalled, upgraded, or at least configured applications for a desktop commercial operating system. An example of configuration is changing the home page of a browser. Readers are not assumed to have any knowledge of programming, but are assumed interested in the OS consumer and small business choice issues raised by programming and programming businesses.

Differences and issues are encountered by admin/users during several BSD and Linux system implementation phases:
 * 1) advocacy
 * 2) packaging systems
 * 3) supported hardware
 * 4) installation
 * 5) configuration
 * 6) administration
 * 7) operation
 * 8) applications

Specific examples can obsolesce rapidly due to competition among distribution developers. For example, a developer might decide to eliminate a specific difference that they see featured in this article.

 * FreeBSD will be used as a specific BSD distribution example, since it has one of the largest of the BSD distribution communities.
 * Slackware will be used as a specific Linux distribution example, since it is the oldest Linux distribution with several further distribution forks.

FreeBSD vs. Slackware here is only a sample to assist the general comparison of BSD and Linux. A comprehensive comparison is beyond the scope of this article.

General Similarities
Because the BSD vs. Linux debate is so common, it may be easy to forget all the similarities.

BSD and Linux distros are generally available as free downloads, but lacking some proprietary programs that are packaged with the paid versions. Downloading typically very large OS distributions can be difficult to impossible using dialup internet connections. Fortunately many distros are available on CDR discs from free software copy vendors, by internet order and postal mail delivery for a few dollars each. (See the external link DistroWatch.com.)

Specific Similarities
BSD and Linux operating systems share much of the same functionality. They are often able to run programs coded for the other system. When a complete desktop environment, such as GNOME, CDE, XFCE or KDE is running, the two systems are often difficult to tell apart.

BSD can also run most Linux programs with a compatibility layer subsystem, which is capable of running even proprietary Linux software. The BSDs each have a Linux-compatibility layer that is installed in a different manner depending on which operating system used.

For example, FreeBSD's Linux-compatibility layer can be installed by compiling FreeBSD with AAC_COMPAT_LINUX or loading already compiled FreeBSD systems with a Linux compatibility program: aac_linux.ko (Per BSD release engineer Scott Long in 2003) Linux cannot run BSD-specific software, although such software is uncommon. It is the compiled and executable program binaries that are somewhat different for each OS family. Generally, any program binary compiled from source code for BSD can also be compiled as a binary for Linux. However, compiling is a learned computer skill, and it doesn't always work as expected.

Lists, Descriptions, and Comparisons of BSD and Linux Distros

 * Berkeley Software Distribution: Open Source BSD Derivatives (BSD derivatives text descriptions)
 * List of Linux distributions (Linux distros text descriptions)
 * Comparison of Linux distributions (Linux distros comparison table)

Advocacy
Advocacy focuses on the differences among both OS families and brand-specific distributions. There are many similarities forgotten when families or specific OS's are contrasted.

Both BSD and Linux have dedicated user and developer communities. Every OS community makes a heavy investment of personal time, in distro implementing, and user learning to install, configure, and operate a branded OS. This focus of time and effort often leads to intense emotional investment. It sometimes results in overzealous advocacy leading to personal disputes that can harm OS communities. Emotional attachment to a consumer choice is familiar from branded merchandise loyalty toward designer clothing and automobiles. Rarely, extreme OS advocacy can take on an unhealthy similarity to religious persuasion, known to psychology as becoming a true believer. (See operating system advocacy).

Advocacy excess led to bad mass-media publicity for BSD and Linux in 2000 (see DeCSS). Bad publicity can politically assist commercial OS competitors, or digital rights management organizations, who are lobbying for laws to prevent the use of free software in government regulated hardware, such as cable and satellite TV decoders.

Hostile counter-advocacy is an important special case that will be sociologically and psychologically analyzed in its own section at the end of this article.

A positive value of rational, ethical, and consumer-oriented advocacy is that it can replace paid advertising that may not exist for free OS distributions.

The Linux Kernel and the GNU Utilities
-

Distro Installation Packaging Classification
Distribution installation packaging is sufficiently complex as to be shared by a number of distros. There are several standardly-named package systems:

BSD package systems
 * pkg/ports
 * pkgsrc

Linux package systems
 * apt
 * portage
 * yum
 * rpm

 * Although, apt and portage are original Linux package systems, both are being used in BSD environment.
 * The Gentoo Linux portage system has similar advantages to BSD ports, it being FreeBSD ports re-written in Python.

Hardware Issues

 * Commercial UNIX is usually designed for a specific hardware architecture intended for business enterprise applications. Redundancy, hot-swap/hot-plug (even some hot CPU swaps), and other technologies are utilized to minimize enterprise downtime. Commercial UNIX companies advertise five 9's reliability; 99.999% uptime, or about 15 minutes downtime per year. The BSD and Linux distros are working toward these goals, but specific hardware gives commercial UNIX a probably unbeatable reliability advantage.

Installation Issues
BSD and Linux installation experiences range from fairly easy to difficult, with occasional complete installation failures. New admin/users may not be aware that how the distro package installer works can have a significant effect on their satisfaction with choice of OS brand. Installations may need to be repeated. A difficult install tends to discourage learning the next phase of OS configuration and operation. A complete failure is usually due to choosing a distro with a small range of supported hardware. Admin/users should make an effort to learn the distro's likely supported hardware range before finalizing an OS brand name choice.

Configuration Issues
-

Administration and Distro Release issues
-

Operation Issues
When not using the graphic user interface (GUI), users enter commands on a command line presented by the shell, a command interpreter program. It is called a shell because in a flow chart diagram it surrounds the kernel. It interfaces data to and from the kernel for the user and other programs.

The traditional UNIX shell is sh, used both for scripts and for interactive use via the command line interface (CLI). It is considered to be somewhat lacking for interactive use, usually without working backspace and arrow keys, among other user's problems.

Linux uses bash, which, unlike csh, is an sh-compatible shell that has been enhanced with features for better interactive use. A single bash shell serves both interactive and scripting purposes well. MacOS X, despite being derived from BSD, has switched to using bash.

BSD historically added csh for interactive use, while keeping sh for scripting. csh is incompatible with sh, and csh lacks features needed for advanced scripting. Advanced users usually need to learn about both. Most BSD systems are configured with this combination of sh and csh, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD.

OpenBSD has chosen to use pdksh for as the default shell for all purposes, doing essentially what Linux and MacOS X have done with bash.

Generally, both sh and csh will be provided by default. It is possible to install modern shells like bash and pdksh on all of these systems, but this is a nuisance and may be difficult for a beginning user.

Application Issues
-

Developer Communities Organizational Styles
Generally, BSD is more centralized than Linux. The BSD OS (including Darwin and Tru64) is more properly compared to Linux OS, while the FreeBSD distribution is more properly compared to Slackware, Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, or Gentoo distributions.

Linux by itself can refer to the bare Linux kernel itself, or more commonly to any system based on that kernel. To function as an operating system, other utilities (file and system utilities, shells, etc. see the GNU project) are required. These other utilities are gathered from various sources and collected together with the kernel by various groups in distributions ("distros"). Kernel and system utilities are developed independently and merged together to form an operating system. This means that the Linux kernel has a version, and all the utilities in the operating system have their own versions unrelated to the kernel.

BSD presents as more centralized. The kernel and basic system utilities are developed, versioned, and distributed together. Other programs, such as X and web browsers, can be brought in from elsewhere, but the basic system comes from one source and is designed specifically for BSD. Being versioned together in the same Concurrent Versions System (CVS) tree affects interfaces between the parts. The parts need only to function in cooperation with other parts from the same supplier and time period, allowing nonportable assumptions to be made. The concept of a kernel version different from the rest of the system is not significant in BSD.

Linux is often claimed to be fragmented, yet the BSD OS family is also fragmented. There are quite a number of Linux distributions that all create their own patchwork of versions of all related components. While this sometimes applies to BSD (e.g., DragonFly BSD has multiple major versions in parallel use), the number of library version combinations and packaging decisions that one will encounter, is much lower if one does not consider NetBSD, OpenBSD, Darwin, Tru64, and others.

Centralized and distributed can each be better, and both models have their advocates; for example, focusing security or flexibility. BSD and Linux projects are not equal in size by number of contributors. A model that works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other.

BSD
The BSD licenses are designed to be completely usable, so that the code can be exploited to the fullest extent; conserving resources and relieving developers from reinventing the wheel by duplicating work which has already been completed and almost all code in a BSD operating system is licensed under one of the BSD-style licenses individually identified as the 2, 3, or 4-clause text.

This style of license puts very few restrictions on what can be done with code licensed under it. Depending on whether old, or new 1999+ version of the license ("BSD-old" / "4-clause BSD", or, "BSD-new" / "revised BSD" / "3-clause BSD"), the restrictions can be as simple as: Other possible restrictions include that:
 * preserving code source credits in the documentation,
 * keeping the existing license in place (prevents code adopters from claiming an original work), and
 * adopters cannot claim that the previous contributors endorse the adopter's new code derivative
 * adopters must list the copyright holder in any advertisements for derivatives
 * adopters cannot hold the contributors liable for any mistakes in the code.

After meeting those simple license restrictions, essentially anything else can be done with the code, including distributing closed-source modified versions. For example, Major Software and Apple have both used BSD code in their proprietary OS products, with Major Software choosing closed-source and Apple choosing open-source for its Mac OSX version of BSD.

However, BSD-style licenses with 2, 3, and 4-clause texts are still in use for various BSD distros and other free software components such as libraries. See BSD license:BSD-style licenses

FreeBSD uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.

Linux
The Linux kernel and many of the utilities commonly distributed with it are licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL's main restriction is that no additional restrictions may be added, ensuring that all future versions of the software will be free. This lets companies improve the software without fear that competitors will make it proprietary.

GPL v2 is the most common free software license in use today. It was designed specifically to morph all software into Free Software. GPL v2 does this by requiring that:
 * all works derived from GPL v2 licensed code must maintain the same restrictions on future derivatives of the code, which include,
 * releasing the source code to any parties who are supplied a binary compiled from the code,
 * supplying all parties who receive any GPL v2 code derivatives, with access to the code's companion license (such as by packing the GPL v2 license text in the same compressed archive with compiled binary and source code files),
 * not obfuscating released code
 * preventing any further restrictions to be placed on the GPL-licensed code - thus code licensed under the original BSD license cannot be licensed under the GPL v2

GPL v2 is intended to prevent the conversion of a free program into a proprietary competitor, so that all future GPL software will remain free, as conceptualized by the Free Software Foundation.

For discussion of the advocacy of one license over the other, see BSD and GPL licensing.

Market Economics of BSD and Linux Free OS's
All OS consumers benefit from free software even if they do not use it. The public advantage of having much software available under the BSD-style and Linux/GNU-GPL licenses is that free-market prices for proprietary licensed commercial software cannot rise without limit, because users can always turn to near public-domain free software. Yet because commercial software can be seductively innovated from free BSD licenses, GPL free software developers cannot fail to counter-innovate,* or users will abandon GPL free in favor of reasonably priced commercial software. Innovation failure is a classically observed problem of industrial socialism.

Thus a commercial vendor monopoly is avoided, and market prices are balanced by classic microeconomic laws of supply and demand that would fail if a monopoly prevailed. This particular balance is achieved due to free software's moderation of the unregulated free market, resulting in a mixed economy of privately socialized consumer demand and publicly capitalized commercial software corporations.

TCP/IP: The origin of Unix-like free software
Though the present free software socialization is private, the government socially capitalized free software through defense budget grants to ARPAnet, that paid for BSD's near universally used TCP/IP Networking Tape 2 software, first released circa 1990, that is usually known as Net/2.

TCP/IP was coded during the height of the cold war to supposedly help military computer network communications survive a nuclear war with the former Soviet Union. Nuclear war explosions with a total megatonage exceeding the threshold of nuclear winter, turned out to not be survivable by humans on the planet (see The Cold and the Dark by the late physicist Carl Sagan, et al.); but, TCP/IP networking was unintentionally an excellent taxpayer investment in software that couldn't be copyrighted or patented, and was therefore available free for every public use.

Is irrational "right to profit" trying to ban free software?
Because free software's moderation reduces the industrial profits of a software license monopoly, circa 2003-2004 news media reported that commercial software organizations (and probably digital rights management organizations) lobbied Congress for laws to prevent the use of free software in government regulated hardware, such as cable and satellite TV decoders. Achieving passage of such laws is the first step toward banning free software, and thus increasing commercial software monopoly license profits.

While their connection to lobbying for the free-software ban is not documented, nothing concerning this issue is generally believed to happen without Major Software's approval. E-list readers and reporters have previously reported a Major Software operative involved in trying to privatize Linux free software (see this well-known poster's offer to the linux.kernel mailing list attempting to buy a BSD-licensed copy of the Linux kernel worth over $600M for only $50,000, including judicial notice of evidence for his being an agent for Major Software.)

The philosophical basis claimed for passing laws banning free goods or services, is a revival of an old corporate claim of a "right to profit", which presumes that free goods and services should be banned because goods and services for sale cannot compete with free goods and services. This is not fundamentally true because of economically illogical passions such as brand names, personal vendor loyalties, and economic cooperation in coops; but, it is true that free goods and services reduce the market value of goods and services for sale. The idea of banning free goods and services is also impractical, since governments at all levels must give free education and other free things to children, disaster victims, the aged, and the poor. As close as has been achieved, some business-friendly states have antisocialist-economy laws banning state competition with private enterprise, which prevents coops from using the purchasing power of the state to lower the cost of commodities like generic pharmaceutical medicines or gasoline.

The basis of corporate shareholder stock purchase, is the risk of losing one's private capital, against the hoped reward of profit in some direct proportion to the shareholder's financial risk. Since economic risk cannot be legislated away, the economic result of all "right to profit" laws, is the transfer of some or all corporate business enterprise risk to taxpayers. Taxpayers then must pay if the corporation does not profit, yet receive nothing if the corporation does make a profit. At a minimum, taxpayers are providing corporations with enterprise risk insurance, but with no insurance premium paid back to the government treasury.

The ultimate result of an entrenched "right to profit" guaranteed by government, is that the corporation will, in all cases, receive the taxpayers' corporate welfare for doing, making, and selling nothing. In short, the economic notion of a "right to profit" is simply a disguised way of laying unlimited claim to the public treasury. That amazing claim is achievable in political practice, when very large campaign donations bypass taxpayer representation, sound fiscal policies, economic science, and the common sense of nearly all politicians of nearly all parties. The best analogy is that "right to profit" is a corporate fairy tale.

Major Software hints at software patents on Linux (and BSD)
Major Software's leadership has publicly suggested in outline form, that the next step against free software is enforcing software patents on routine computer operations. For example, using a mouse to click in a GUI window. Corporate leadership has mentioned Linux OS in other competitive contexts, so Linux is their obvious target. Major Software, being the holder of most such patents, could theoretically sue any Linux free software developer who wrote a program that used a mouse, and gave the patented program away without a charge in violation of patent licensing terms requiring a monetary fee exchange.

While abridging the human right of gift would seem to be a serious political rights violation, USA citizens are guaranteed considerably fewer Constitutional rights when the government is privatized, or not involved. Therefore it is quite realistic that Linux development could be halted by a USA Federal court order in the next 10 years. Furthermore, such an order would be binding on all countries that are signatories to patent treaties with the United States, and those treaties will be enforceable under the penalty provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Major Software could theoretically set the minimum prices of competing software, through the terms of a patent license, but in practice, they might get sued for engaging in a monopoly restraint of trade. Their second option is to deny patent licensing to any competitor, but that too could result in an anticompetitive practices lawsuit.

Major Software's third option is the best: demand a significantly hefty royalty on every copy of a Linux OS using their patents. Major Software could set this fee so that the Linux OS would sell, but not very well, and they could probably avoid a successful anticompetitive lawsuit. Having established patent control and even a piece of the Linux profit, Major Software would then engage all of their other previously known market practices to limit Linux to something like the sales of IBM OS/2 or BeOS, which sales were/are categorically also ran.

Major Software's history of co-opting open standards
Major Software has historically adopted open standards, gained installed base control of that open standards market, and then gradually changed the open standard by adding proprietary extensions, until all users are locked into the Major Software extensions that no one else is allow to copy. The final step in the cycle is to abandon that market in favor of a totally proprietary new system, leaving the installed base with no choice except migration to the new system.

With control of Linux's (and BSD's) software patents, Major Software could probably control most new Linux developments. Because they control the patents, they would always know what Linux developers were going to do. By foot dragging at critical contract signing times, they could make sure that any new Linux feature was always late to Major Software's critical corporate business market, and they would always have a campaign ready to suck the media oxygen away from whatever Linux was going to do to gain that business market.

When selecting between BSD and Linux *, it is only fair to point out that many influential software businesses have a strong interest in continued BSD development, including Apple Computer and its Mac OSX. Therefore BSD developers are less likely to be sued for software patent violations, than are Linux developers. Also the BSD license is less of a threat to software giants like Major Software and Nearly-as-large software. Unlike Linux developers, BSD developers generally dislike GUI's, and don't really want to compete the way Linux developers seem to want.

Centralized control of BSD is a disadvantage in an indirect takeover scenario. Among other things, the BSD community is presently small enough that Major Software could buy up the major BSD development talent, and so control the innovations that BSD produces. If BSD free releases fail to innovate, and Linux development is halted by patent violations, then users must to turn to Major Software and other commercial software monopolies at rising free-market prices.

Understanding Hostile Counter-Advocacy
The purpose of this section is not to stir up more trouble, but to help explain why some (but not all or even most) traditional BSD workers including development programmers and users, feel resentment toward other new members of the computing community. The purpose of doing this analysis is to help them feel better, because they may feel that no one understands their point of view, or appreciates the effort they have made for nearly 25 years to further the public domain with free software.

Hostile counter advocacy
Hostile counter advocacy occurs when users and user groups consistently engage in name-calling, discussion flame wars, and ad hominem personal attacks apparently based only on a preference of OS. All major OS user groups, Windows, Macs, BSD, and Linux user groups have engaged in hostile counter-advocacy (See DeCSS). But outsiders are frequently mystified by a casual observation that BSD user groups are particularly hostile toward Linux user groups, when outsiders observe little distinction between the two. Such hostility resembles the conflict of the Cherons, black-and-white aliens featured in a Star Trek (TOS) episode, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." The only difference between the two races of aliens was a mirror reversal of black side and white side.

Historic decline of elite craft workers
This type of hostility has reoccurred throughout industrial history, and is related to the Marxian class phenomenon known as proletarianisation. When an industrial craft is new, the relatively few early workers to master the craft become an elite workers group, and have a lot of influence and therefore power over the direction of craft development. For example, this was true of the early powered weaving loom craftspersons in England, who enjoyed considerably more privileges than other workers of their socioeconomic class, including the first adult education night classes. With the passage of time the craft matures, and it is taught to many other workers. As a result wages fall, the early workers' influence wanes, and they often express hostility toward the newer workers. These displaced feelings are psychologically projected onto other people, because there is no one else to blame for their personal and collective disappointment related to future shock.

Mass migrant discrimination
In a closely related social phenomenon, all waves of migrants are treated with varying degrees of contempt simply because they are newbies, who are vaguely perceived as a social threat because of their large numbers. Typical of this was the flaming of America On Line (AOL) ISP users when AOL finally allowed their users to connect to the open internet. Having been held back by regressive AOL system policies, they didn't know the things that other internet users had long taken for granted, such as the good manners of netiquette.

BSD worker marginalization
Dating the BSD craft from 4.2BSD UNIX in 1982, noncommercial Unix-like development was the exclusive province of BSD workers until the release of the Linux kernel in 1992. While BSD continued to quietly develop without public promotion, Linux became a well-publicized mass movement. By a decade later, BSD workers increasingly noticed that their labor-intensive volunteer efforts to produce free software were being marginalized by Linus Torvold's Linux kernel corunning with Richard Stallman's GNU ("GNU's Not UNIX") command utilities that BSD workers considered less well crafted than an equivalent BSD kernel with integrated BSD utilities.

CLI advocacy
BSD workers had always used a command line interface (CLI), in which a series of word-like commands are typed in following a prompt, which are usually executed by pressing the Enter key (formerly labeled the Return key). The CLI interface requires less program structure (overhead) than a graphic user interface (GUI), so programs execute faster. A CLI also offers better fine-tuning control of the OS configuration. BSD workers believe that a CLI can accomplish nearly every computing task, if only the user would read the documentation for each command known as man pages. However, Major Software had stopped writing official user manuals circa 1995, because they concluded that users would not read them.

GUI advocacy
On the other hand most new users have grown up while using a GUI in Macintosh and later Windows OS's. A GUI offers easier user control of the application program, for example, in moving blocks of text in a word processor. A word processor spends most of its time waiting for user input, so a faster OS is typically of less advantage in a productivity application (typically simple business software). A GUI is just plain easier to learn and use. In this regard most new users really are different than BSD workers.

CLI vs. GUI desktop interface symbolism
Therefore it wasn't surprising that marginalized BSD workers focused on the GUI as being a symbol of their decline in status. BSD workers were originally academics, and were always persons with high intelligence, prodigious memory, fast reading with comprehension ability, exceptional skills at mathematics and logic, physically dexterous touch typing, and capability of doing extremely difficult abstract work for many years running. Having these exceptional qualities, BSD workers considered themselves an elite group, and rightly so.

Perceived inferiority of GUI users
By inverse logic, any user who wanted a GUI, was not like BSD workers. By inverse logical stereotyped extension, GUI users were collectively not smart, had a weak memory, couldn't read well, couldn't type well, and were more or less lazy. That a GUI is easier, is an advantage that does not necessarily impress traditional BSD workers. BSD workers tend to have an attitude attributed to historic Calvinism religion that a desire (and ability) to do things the harder way is a sign of moral superiority. This is one example of why OS advocacy sometimes resembles religious proselytization.

Identifying Linux with a GUI
New users typically request that populist (opposite of elite) Linux developers provide a Windows and Mac-like GUI desktop interface. This GUI desktop is usually the X Window System and can be compiled as binaries for use with all BSD and Linux OS's. The two most common developer implementations of X Windows are GNOME and KDE. BSD workers call the X Window System an optional application program, and not part of the BSD or Linux OS. New users perceive X Windows from a Major Software Windows and Apple Macintosh perspective, in that those OS's almost don't exist without the GUI. Therefore new users assume that X Windows is by necessity a part of Linux, and should be a part of BSD. Linux user groups and developers accept this, which leads directly into competition with Windows, and therefore conflict with Major Software. BSD workers typically don't agree with new users perceptions that X Windows should be a part of BSD, which helps them avoid conflict with Major Software. They will closely watch what Major Software does to Linux developers.

Identifying BSD with a GUI
Some BSD developers have become populist and are packaging BSD with X Windows in a default installation, for example, DesktopBSD. DesktopBSD is no different than FreeBSD running a KDE desktop application, but the user can do a reinstall with less configuration work. There is also a perception advantage. The new user tells others that DesktopBSD installs like an OS is "supposed to". Traditional BSD workers don't think it's "supposed to" install this way, but with waves of new users, what they think is increasingly marginalized, and some of them are increasingly resentful because of it.

Loss of BSD workers' abstract language
Language abstractions are a major part of group identity and elite privilege. When large numbers of migrating users begin to redefine concepts, such as what Linux or BSD "is" (e.g., must install with a desktop), then formerly elite BSD workers experience a further loss of status and privileges to name and define OS or application abstractions. They find that they can't even discuss issues in a public newsgroup without frequent off topic debates about what BSD, Linux, and other abstract computing concepts mean. Because identity, investment of effort, and subscription to a cause is closely associated with language, this can result in feelings of losing one's personal identity, feelings of having wasted large portions of one's life, feelings of having engaged in a lost cause, and most importantly, feelings of being unappreciated or even worthlessness. This is a serious challenge to good psychological health, and defensive reactions are psychologically normal, though certainly not good social politics.

Diversity of BSD workers reactions to diminished elite status
Some traditional BSD workers resentment of their steadily eroding status results in defensive hostile counter-advocacy toward GUI users generally, and Linux users specifically. This behavior tends to start feuds, since other users can't understand what some traditional BSD workers or users are defending. Obviously not every traditional BSD worker reacts with hostility to a loss of former status. Some accept that the CLI BSD period of history is fading and move on to other interests. Others accept the changes in language, continue to focus on BSD kernel development, and ignore what end users do with GUI. Still others embrace populist change and develop what new users want from them, while continuing to develop what they believe to be the technically superior BSD OS. Some may cynically expect Major Software to crush Linux, and wait for BSD's opportunity to pick up the pieces. Even if Major Software does not crush Linux, BSD is still likely to become Major Software's official Unix-like OS. When that happens BSD will look exactly like Linux, desktop and all, but the BSD workers will say, it's still better crafted on the inside.

title: User:Taxman/BSD and Linux


text:
User:Chrisn

I have been reading through the Wikipedia for a very long time although I've never made any edits. I've talked a bit about a few things in various talks.

I've got a background as an economist but my work generally revolves around IT, languages and design.

title: User:Chrisn


text:
Girlamatic

Girlamatic (sometimes stylized as GirlAMatic or Girl-A-Matic) was a webcomic subscription service launched by Joey Manley and Lea Hernandez in March 2003. It was the third online magazine Manley established as part of his Modern Tales family of websites. Girlamatic was created as a place where both female artists and readers could feel comfortable and featured a diverse mix of genres. When the site launched, the most recent webcomic pages and strips were free, and the website's archives were available by subscription. The editorial role was held by Hernandez from 2003 until 2006, when it was taken over by Arcana Jayne-creator Lisa Jonté, one of the site's original artists. In 2009, Girlamatic was relaunched as a free digital magazine, this time edited by Spades-creator Diana McQueen. The archives of the webcomics that ran on Girlamatic remained freely available until the website was discontinued in 2013.

Concept
Lea Hernandez's vision when creating Girlamatic was to create a website that she herself would like to read and where both female artists and readers could feel comfortable. The website allowed readers and creators to avoid the male-dominated direct market of superhero comic books. Talking with Publishers Weekly in 2004, Hernandez said "an anthology of girl-friendly comics would sink like a stone in the direct market." Hernandez said she had gathered artists of "the new mainstream" and she hoped they would find a wider audience for their work through Girlamatic.

The name "Girlamatic" was chosen to signify the difference between it and other comic platforms. Hernandez initially wanted to name the website "ModernGirls", but this name was already taken by a porn site. Webcartoonist Shaenon K. Garrity noted that she liked the website's name for its "juxtaposition of squishy girliness with hard retro tech," saying that the website has always blended a large variety of themes, including "cuteness and horror, comedy and melodrama, gruesome darkness and giggly light, femininity and masculinity." Lisa Jonté stated that Girlamatic's inclusion criteria were essentially "whatever appeals to the editor ... we want engaging stories with well-developed characters." Jonté did note that she mainly wanted to stay away from female sex-appeal and "frilly pink melodrama."

Girlamatic was the third webcomic subscription service launched and managed by Joey Manley, following the success of Modern Tales and Serializer.net. This subscription model was revolutionary at the time, and was one of the first profitable subscription models for webcomics.

History
Girlamatic launched on March 31, 2003 with sixteen artists: Donna Barr, Vera Brosgol, Kris Dresen, Shaenon K. Garrity, Lisa Jonté, Layla Lawlor, Jenn Manley Lee, Dylan Meconis, Andre Richard, Harley Sparx, Spike Trotman, Jason Thompson, Carla Speed McNeil, Rachel Hartman, Jesse Hamm, and Tochi. Girlamatic archives could be accessed for $2.95 USD per month or $29.95 per year. The service had ten regular features in its first year. Hernandez posted an open call for new submissions in 2004, and eleven new features were added to Girlamatic in April 2004.

Arcana Jayne creator Lisa Jonté took over Hernandez's role as editor in early 2006. At this point, Girlamatic sent out an open call to creators once or twice per year. Brigid Alverson of Comic Book Resources noted that Girlamatic went "quiet" between 2007 and 2009. During this period, all of Joey Manley's websites merged into comics-oriented social media and publishing platform ComicSpace, which he developed in collaboration with OnlineComics.net creator Josh Robert. Girlamatic relaunched on July 31, 2009. This time, artist Diana McQueen (creator of Spades) took over as the editor, and subscription fees were dropped entirely. Despite this, McQueen said Girlamatic had not become a hosting website or artist community, but remained a magazine. McQueen also brought in two bloggers: Nick Popio of Hobotaku posted reviews of manga, anime, and western comics, while Elizabeth Shupe wrote blog posts about dolls. Girlamatic was the first of Manley's Modern Tales-family of subscription services to relaunch on ComicSpace.

McQueen believed the subscription model of the Modern Tales-family had failed and too few readers were willing to pay for online media. Girlamatic went on to have limited online advertising handled by the ComicSpace ad network. McQueen aspired to have print editions of Girlamatic in the tradition of Shojo Beat, but none were ever released. ComicSpace never achieved success, and Girlamatic closed alongside Manley's other websites in April 2013.

Webcomics
Several cartoonists made their professional debut through Girlamatic, while other artists serialized their existing work on the service.
 * Von Allen's 2007 graphic novel the road to god knows… was serialized on Girlamatic.
 * Svetlana Chmakova's first professional work was publishing Chasing Rainbows on Girlamatic.
 * Barry Deutch began publishing Hereville on Girlamatic in 2004.
 * Shaenon K. Garrity published a spin-off of her webcomic Narbonic on Girlamatic, titled Li'l Mell and Sergio.
 * Rachel Hartman published Return of the Mad Bun on Girlamatic as a follow-up to her print comic series Amy Unbounded.
 * Lea Hernandez published a sequel to her comic book Rumble Girls: Silky Warrior Tansie on the website, titled Rumble Girls: Runaway Lightning Ohmry.
 * Hope Larson published I Was There & Just Returned on Girlamatic while a senior in art school.
 * Layla Lawlor published Kismet: Hunter's Moon on Girlamatic.
 * Dave Roman began releasing Astronaut Elementary on Girlamatic in 2004.
 * Tara Tallan ran her print comic Galaxion on Girlamatic from 2006 to 2010.
 * Raina Telgemeier began serializing her Baby Sitter's Club and Smile graphic novels on Girlamatic in 2004.
 * Jason Thompson moved his 2001 webcomic The Stiff onto Girlamatic.
 * Spike Trotman published her first big webcomic projects through Girlamatic, Sparkneedle and Lucas and Odessa.
 * Arcana Jayne, a strip by Girlamatic editor and former Sequential Tart contributor Lisa R. Jonté. Set in a 1930s-meets-sorcery world, the comic follows the adventures of the titular Arcana Jayne, a witch and treasure seeking hedonist. The character was one Jonté had previously created, utilising her creation for the new strip.

Two new webcomics were added to the Girlamatic roster during its 2009 relaunch: The Continentals by Darryl Hughes and Monique McNaughton, and Godseeker by Lisa Gilbert and Terry Blauer.

Reception
Some critics were unsure what to make of the website when it launched in 2003. American editorial cartoonist Ted Rall initially proclaimed the website a "ghetto for women cartoonists". In 2005, blogger Eric Burns said he felt uncomfortable entering a space that was mainly set up for women. He also voiced concern that initiatives like Girlamatic might section off and divide the webcomic community, making it less likely for male readers to come across the works of female webcartoonists.

In 2006, comic book author Gail Simone called Girlamatic "one of the most important venues for female-friendly comics created to date." Girlamatic has received various Lulu awards and nominations for being among the "most women-friendly and reader-friendly work in comics."

title: Girlamatic


text:
Talk:Buddy Rich

His Technique
Add to the "Technique" Section the following: His technique is so advanced, it won’t help anyone to divine how he held his sticks; mostly, he used the traditional grip, R.H. palm down, L.H. palm up. No one has the chops he had; He once hurt his right hand and for a month, he played lots of gigs using just his left hand; no one noticed; his playing was still superb. Go figure.Eweezeke (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When I saw him live, late in his life, he played so fast that he made the drumhead smoke (the phrase "He's smokin'" became real for me at that moment). Any cites on this phenomena would add to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Walkman
I just made a small edit removing "Walkman" from the personality section where it was cited as being used to clandestinely record Buddy. In the edit comment I said that early eighties Walkmans were not capable of recording. Just discovered there was a Walkman Sport that could record. Didn't know that. I stand corrected, but it was an Aiwa that was actually used, not a Walkman, which really isn't relevant to the point in the article anyway so I didn't use the brand name and simply inserted "compact cassette recorder." SentientParadox (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

World War II service
Although Rich served in the United States Marine Corps during the World War II era, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he served overseas in a war zone during the war or had a significant role during the war as a civilian. Accordingly, Category:American people of World War II was removed from the article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Band names
Bands led by Buddy Rich have been billed as the "Buddy Rich Orchestra", the "Buddy Rich Big Band", the "Buddy Rich Band", "The Big Band Machine" (similarly here) and The Best Band I Ever Had. I thought that the "Orchestra" variant referred only to 1945–48; however, I found it on the cover art of the 1999 re-issue When I Found You. Are all the band names synonymous? Are there other names as well? — BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The programmes I have, of his tours in the UK between 1981 and 1984, were billed as "Buddy Rich & The Buddy Rich Orchestra", if that is of any interest. Poltair (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1973 concert program found here also has "Buddy Rich & Orchestra". — BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Didn’t knock rock drummers?
“ Mel also was familiar with Buddy's dislike of rock music, but he states that "when some of these rock drummers came to greet Buddy after a show, he was always charming and polite. And he never, at least in my presence, disparaged them in any way."

So who was it said Ringo Starr was ‘adequate at best’, please ? 2001:8003:2341:5400:B98A:EF40:FD67:7D51 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Gee whiz - I mean - maybe anybody who's ever heard him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.221 (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Recording dates, release dates
Another example of recording dates being included with release dates. We only need the latter. Having both isn't necessary and creates confusion. Vmavanti (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Buddy Rich


text: Category:Flags of the United States

title: Category:Flags of the United States


text:
The Lime Twig

The Lime Twig is a 1961 experimental novel by American writer John Hawkes.

Plot
In England after World War II, a sedate, bored lower-class couple—Michael and Margaret Banks—are lured into fronting a racehorse scheme. Michael is befriended by William Hencher, a well-meaning but lost soul who fell into association with a ruthless gang during the war. After his mother's death, Hencher wants to repay the Bankses for their allowing him to rent a room in their home, where he had lived with his mother for twenty years. Knowing Michael likes horses, Hencher invites him to the heist of the racehorse Rock Castle—which goes awry, leading to Hencher's death. The gang members then keep Michael under wraps. Realizing that Margaret is becoming suspicious of Michael's absence, they force Michael to call and tell her to meet him at a party. In order to ensure that Michael will front as the owner of the stolen stallion, they kidnap Margaret while distracting Michael with two women, both sexual predators. The heavy of the gang, Thick, beats Margaret mercilessly with a truncheon after she attempts to escape; Larry, the kingpin of the gang, slashes and rapes her. Meanwhile, Michael finds pleasure in a femme fatale, Sybilline, the mistress of Larry—as well as two other women. Badly beaten in a street fight with a constable, Michael attempts to redeem himself from both criminal activity and infidelity by thwarting the race, which has been set up in order to allow Larry to retire to America in comfort.

Style and structure
The work is told in a framed narrative, with the commentary of the sports writer Sidney Slyter prefacing each chapter (at the request of Hawkes' publisher New Directions, who feared that the novella would be too confusing otherwise). Hencher narrates the first chapter, which concerns his recollections of life with his mother during World War II. The other chapters are all presented in a third-person limited style with a focus on the banal inner lives of Michael and Margaret Banks. The style is one of broken, dreamlike sequences, which suspend time in a quintessentially postmodern fashion. The novella's accumulation of events acts as wish fulfillment run amok for Michael and Margaret, both of whom become helplessly entrapped in fantasies that turn into nightmares. Hawkes underscores the theme of entrapment imagistically, with fleeting references to a sparrow attacked by a hive of bees, a wasp trapped between panes of glass, and so on. The title of the novel itself refers to the old practice of catching birds by spreading lime on a twig, the master trope of the narrative.

Influential American literary critic Leslie Fiedler contributed a preface, arguing for Hawkes' greatness: "For the sake of art and the truth, [Hawkes] dissolves the rational universe which we are driven, for the sake of sanity and peace, to manufacture out of the chaos of memory, impression, reflex and fantasy." Southern writer Flannery O'Connor (a friend of Hawkes) praised the novel as well, commenting in a letter that "You suffer The Lime Twig like a dream. It seems to be something that is happening to you, that you want to escape from but can't."

Secondary Literature

 * Robert I. Edenbaum, "John Hawkes: The Lime Twig and Other Tenuous Horrors." The Massachusetts Review Vol. 7, No. 3 (Summer, 1966), pp. 462–475.

title: The Lime Twig


text: User talk:143.238.245.213

title: User talk:143.238.245.213


text:
User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Algerian Six

__NOINDEX__

The Algerian six were six Algerians, living in Bosnia, who fell under suspicion of plotting to bomb the American Embassy.

The Algerians were arrested, tried, acquited, in Bosnian courts. Nevertheless they were subsequently captured by American security officials and transported to detention in Camp Delta in the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Five of the six were naturalized Bosnian citizens:
 * Boudella al Hajj, an Iman and manager of Bosnian orphanages.

Testimony of Boudella al Hajj at his Combatant Status Review Tribunal
Al Hajj testified before his Combatant Status Review Tribunal on October 18, 2004. The summary of the testimony of Al Hajj, and the three witnesses he called, the three other Algerians he knew personally, consumed 25 pages.

Al Hajj, and his fellow Algerians, assured the Tribunal officers that they had no idea the allegations

a. The detainee is associated with al Qaida:
 * 1) The detainee was arrested with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, a known al Qaida associate, for International Terrorism by the Bosnian-Herzegovina authorities.
 * 2) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX had phone conversations with Abu Zubayday, a senior aide to Usama Bin Laden, who was in charge of screening recruits for al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan.
 * 3) The detainee and others acted as an organizaed terrorist group and they were in contact with known al Qaida member, Abu Zubaydah.
 * 4) Detainee was arrested by Bosnian authorities in connection with a planned attack on the American embassy.
 * 5) Detainee is a member of the Mujahadin network. Also, detainee is likely a member of Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, a militant organization.
 * 6) Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, a militant organization.
 * 7) Armed Islamic Group of Algeria is on the list of sympathizers and helpers of Usama Bin Laden's al Qaida.

title: User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Algerian Six