That has been subject of dispute, Iraq being of the opinion that when fitted with guidance systems and warheads, the missiles would not violate range limits. Nevertheless, they destroyed them upon the UN's request.
Furthermore, the existence of these missiles is - even if their not very significant exceeding of range limits was intentionally - by no means a justification for war. It is at best a pretext, and a very weak one. The problem is that Bush and his Administration decided to go to war first, then started looking for a justification. When they did not find any, they went to war anyway.
> Actually 1441 gave the US all they needed.
That is simply untrue. 1441 was only agreed upon by the security council because it did not include the automatic application of force by any country. Why do you think a security council with a majority of members opposed to war would have ratified a resolution that authorizes war? The traditional phrase for UN backed military action used in resolutions is to authorize "ANY MEANS NECESSARY" to enforce compliance. 1441 only threatens "serious consequences" of an unspecified nature (i.e. yet to be agreed upon) in the case of "a material breach" (which has not been declared to have happended by the UN).
> Yup. 12+ years of chances.
It is not America's job to give chances, but the UN's. What exactly did Iraq do to your country that you think you must wage war? War between countries is ONLY justified in self-defense, see UN charter. Only exception to the rule is UN backed action.
Anyway, 12+ years of chances to do what exactly? Destroy WOMD? Well, they didn't find any.
> Still, I believe that we, humans, need wars. It's in our nature. Apart from the pain and suffering, wars have proven to be of considerable benefit to our civilisation.
> At any rate, we need wars. Wars are good for us. Not for the individual, but they are of benefit to the society.
You know, Hitler had a similar philosophy. It's darwinism applied to social development. These ideas were the ideological foundation for WW2, which most people agree, was not a very good thing.
Prosperity and economic growth is possible without killing people.
A chance to do what? They were conducting their inspections, and hoping to be done in a few months. So far, they had not found condemning evidence.
> Did or did not Bush give the United Nations a chance?
A chance to do what? A chance to say "yes Mr. Bush, please go and drop those bombs and stuff on evil Iraqi children, don't mind there is no reason at all since you cannot prove anything about the mysterious invisible weapons of mass destruction"? Yes, the UN had that chance.
A chance to peacefully settle the conflict between the US and Iraq, by letting the inspections come to an end, either by finding condemning evidence, or finding nothing at all (which I personally consider much more likely) - NO.
> Did or did not Bush give Saddam Hussein a chance?
A chance to do what? To break his own vows, step down and yield the country to the arbitrary demands of the US? With regard to UN, he was complying admirably well, destroying missiles etc. Even if they exceeded limitations in theory, w/o an explosive warhead, etc, by an unproven value, while aggressive forces were accumulating around Iraq's borders. In the face of a looming war, Iraq disarmed against all military reasoning, trying to avoid war... but alas, the war had to be. One last unfulfillable ultimatum (Saddam Hussein had _vowed_ not to leave the country). BOOM.
And who says that I need approval to produce products that interoperate with the products of another manufacturer? That's so silly, it's as if a hammer manufacturer could force you to buy his (overpriced) nails if you bought his (cheap) hammer. The market just doesn't work that way. Things like this are a recent development, and there is no absolutely no justification for it. When someone sells me something, he gives up his rights on it, and it should be my own choice how and with what I use ist. And it should be other peoples' choice to produce that with which I might want to use the item I bought...
Canon isn't really that different. They employ no technical measures in order to lock you onto their ink, which is good. But there are other means to control the market. In Germany, Canon is currently trying to get a court to stop a producer of ink cartridges (Pelikan) from selling their Canon compatible products (on patent charges).
RTL and some Dutch television networks belong to the same company. They broadcast the event in Germany, too, because there are more far more viewers in Germany than in the Netherlands. Probably the ad revenue from the Netherlands alone wouldn't cover their expenses:).
You DO realize that they aren't selling anything? So how are they going to infringe a trademark if they don't do any trade? The reason for trademark protection is to stop competing companies from abusing the trademark, not to stop people using the trademarked word at all.
That might have been irony, a stylistic device you might have heard about if you hadn't been sleeping through all your English-or-whatever-your-first-language-is-and-i-h ope-there-is-something-like-irony-there lessons...
They just describe *how* to put hardware together in order to build your own Cisco-Workalike. They don't *sell* them. They don't offer the software for download. It's just a howto. What if you already got the software? Buy it from Cisco? Take apart a machine and get it out?
Really, it can't be illegal if there is no crime...
Did you ever consider that there are other people on the world besides Americans? AFAIK the American economy is by far the strongest around, so it needn't be strengthened... what's your point??
But we're not talking about products, we're talking about names in a network... I usually feel some mental pain at the thought of trademark law applied to names that do not mark a product nor are used in any form of trade (non commercial sites). There's something wrong with the laws or their interpretation, if "trademarks" cover everything else but trade, too.
But in this case, it wasn't about a company at all. It was a very old city claiming the rights to its quite unique name. In my opinion that claim carries more moral weight than the commercial interests of a some possibly short-ived company.
I think the judge did the right thing in this case, the term Barcelona is commonly understood to refer to the Spanish city of Barcelona. But this shouldn't be based on possession of a "trademark"... there's really no trade involved. It's the name of a large city, this fact should supersede registered rademarks anyway... "culture supersedes commerce" would be a nice rule:-).
--- snip --- Morpheus Preview Edition 1.3.1.1 Copyright(c) 2002 Streamcast Networks. All rights reserved.
Includes Gnutella, Gnucleus Technologies under General Public License.
Portions Copyright(c) 1995-2000 Microsoft Corporation. Includes Microsoft Internet Explorer technology under license. --- snip ---
I wonder if the Internet Explorer code still is included - and if so, if its source has been published. Else Morpheus really would be in violation of the GPL...
Actually, in Germany it is legal to make copies of copyrighted works (not including software) for private use. Your friend may lend you a compact disc, you copy it and put it in your car => perfectly legal. You may even make copies for other people, as long as you're not doing it for money (i.e. you charge only the cost of the medium), and only make some limited (3-7) number of copies of any recording.
The taxes that are paid on devices that are used for copying are there because of the legality of private copies.
Well, actually I don't think it a crime to sell music for money, it's perfectly ok. But I don't like to be forced to buy lots of CDs for lots of money if I want just a little diversity in my listening habits. Just as I don't like to be forced to buy MS Office for $500 or whatever, only because I need to open/edit an occasional.doc or.xls file. That's why privately copying sofware/music doesn't give me a bad conscience at all - after all, I couldn't afford to buy it all anyway. Make MS Office sell for $50 for private use, CDs for $5, no problem. Probably they'd still make enough money, because people would be more inclined to buy at a reasonable price. Cost for copying _IS_ near zero, so charging such horrendous sums from poor people like me is practically useless.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
> They knew those missible were against the ban,
That has been subject of dispute, Iraq being of the opinion that when fitted with guidance systems and warheads, the missiles would not violate range limits. Nevertheless, they destroyed them upon the UN's request.
Furthermore, the existence of these missiles is - even if their not very significant exceeding of range limits was intentionally - by no means a justification for war. It is at best a pretext, and a very weak one. The problem is that Bush and his Administration decided to go to war first, then started looking for a justification. When they did not find any, they went to war anyway.
> Actually 1441 gave the US all they needed.
That is simply untrue. 1441 was only agreed upon by the security council because it did not include the automatic application of force by any country. Why do you think a security council with a majority of members opposed to war would have ratified a resolution that authorizes war?
The traditional phrase for UN backed military action used in resolutions is to authorize "ANY MEANS NECESSARY" to enforce compliance. 1441 only threatens "serious consequences" of an unspecified nature (i.e. yet to be agreed upon) in the case of "a material breach" (which has not been declared to have happended by the UN).
> Yup. 12+ years of chances.
It is not America's job to give chances, but the UN's. What exactly did Iraq do to your country that you think you must wage war? War between countries is ONLY justified in self-defense, see UN charter. Only exception to the rule is UN backed action.
Anyway, 12+ years of chances to do what exactly? Destroy WOMD? Well, they didn't find any.
> stop or I will say stop again
Stop doing what?
Sebastian
> Still, I believe that we, humans, need wars. It's in our nature. Apart from the pain and suffering, wars have proven to be of considerable benefit to our civilisation.
> At any rate, we need wars. Wars are good for us. Not for the individual, but they are of benefit to the society.
You know, Hitler had a similar philosophy. It's darwinism applied to social development. These ideas were the ideological foundation for WW2, which most people agree, was not a very good thing.
Prosperity and economic growth is possible without killing people.
> Did or did not Bush give inspectors a chance?
A chance to do what? They were conducting their inspections, and hoping to be done in a few months.
So far, they had not found condemning evidence.
> Did or did not Bush give the United Nations a chance?
A chance to do what? A chance to say "yes Mr. Bush, please go and drop those bombs and stuff on evil Iraqi children, don't mind there is no reason at all since you cannot prove anything about the mysterious invisible weapons of mass destruction"? Yes, the UN had that chance.
A chance to peacefully settle the conflict between the US and Iraq, by letting the inspections come to an end, either by finding condemning evidence, or finding nothing at all (which I personally consider much more likely) - NO.
> Did or did not Bush give Saddam Hussein a chance?
A chance to do what? To break his own vows, step down and yield the country to the arbitrary demands of the US? With regard to UN, he was complying admirably well, destroying missiles etc. Even if they exceeded limitations in theory, w/o an explosive warhead, etc, by an unproven value, while aggressive forces were accumulating around Iraq's borders. In the face of a looming war, Iraq disarmed against all military reasoning, trying to avoid war... but alas, the war had to be. One last unfulfillable ultimatum (Saddam Hussein had _vowed_ not to leave the country). BOOM.
Drop bombs. Kill civilians. All hail America.
And who says that I need approval to produce products that interoperate with the products of another manufacturer? That's so silly, it's as if a hammer manufacturer could force you to buy his (overpriced) nails if you bought his (cheap) hammer. The market just doesn't work that way. Things like this are a recent development, and there is no absolutely no justification for it. When someone sells me something, he gives up his rights on it, and it should be my own choice how and with what I use ist. And it should be other peoples' choice to produce that with which I might want to use the item I bought...
America is a strange country...
Canon isn't really that different. They employ no technical measures in order to lock you onto their ink, which is good. But there are other means to control the market. In Germany, Canon is currently trying to get a court to stop a producer of ink cartridges (Pelikan) from selling their Canon compatible products (on patent charges).
RTL and some Dutch television networks belong to the same company. They broadcast the event in Germany, too, because there are more far more viewers in Germany than in the Netherlands. Probably the ad revenue from the Netherlands alone wouldn't cover their expenses :).
You DO realize that they aren't selling anything? So how are they going to infringe a trademark if they don't do any trade? The reason for trademark protection is to stop competing companies from abusing the trademark, not to stop people using the trademarked word at all.
Sebastian
That might have been irony, a stylistic device you might have heard about if you hadn't been sleeping through all your English-or-whatever-your-first-language-is-and-i-h ope-there-is-something-like-irony-there lessons...
Why should it be pulled?
They just describe *how* to put hardware together in order to build your own Cisco-Workalike. They don't *sell* them. They don't offer the software for download. It's just a howto. What if you already got the software? Buy it from Cisco? Take apart a machine and get it out?
Really, it can't be illegal if there is no crime...
Damn, Mozilla 1.1 is out since yesterday, and there are *still* no packages in Debian/unstable. ...Want...Mozilla....Now...! :-)
:-(
If I install a tar.gz now, I'll break my fine packaging system.
> -atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa [mensa.org] member. I
> have no toleranse for stupidity.
Then you might consider changing your signature, or do you have _tolerance_ for people who make stupid typos (while trying to be arrogant)?
You're fine as long as you're not a terrorist muslim these days. Who knows what they do to the genitals of Guantanamo Bay prisoners...
What exactly is a "draconic human rights law"?
Nonsense...
Did you ever consider that there are other people on the world besides Americans? AFAIK the American economy is by far the strongest around, so it needn't be strengthened... what's your point??
Because before they had a chance to put it on the list, France surrendered...
There are countries whose top-level-domain is an abbreviation of the countries name in its native language.
.es, like españa. Not .sp.
The toplevel domain for Spain is
I guess they already have taken an appropriate domain, but do not agree with a company using the city's name for their own commercial gain...
But we're not talking about products, we're talking about names in a network... I usually feel some mental pain at the thought of trademark law applied to names that do not mark a product nor are used in any form of trade (non commercial sites). There's something wrong with the laws or their interpretation, if "trademarks" cover everything else but trade, too.
But in this case, it wasn't about a company at all. It was a very old city claiming the rights to its quite unique name. In my opinion that claim carries more moral weight than the commercial interests of a some possibly short-ived company.
I think the judge did the right thing in this case, the term Barcelona is commonly understood to refer to the Spanish city of Barcelona. But this shouldn't be based on possession of a "trademark"... there's really no trade involved. It's the name of a large city, this fact should supersede registered rademarks anyway... "culture supersedes commerce" would be a nice rule :-).
--- snip ---
Morpheus Preview Edition 1.3.1.1
Copyright(c) 2002 Streamcast Networks. All rights reserved.
Includes Gnutella, Gnucleus Technologies under General Public License.
Portions Copyright(c) 1995-2000 Microsoft Corporation.
Includes Microsoft Internet Explorer technology under license.
--- snip ---
I wonder if the Internet Explorer code still is included - and if so, if its source has been published. Else Morpheus really would be in violation of the GPL...
Well, Germans actually use many English terms for computer related stuff, and "user" is almost as good as "Benutzer".
Actually, in Germany it is legal to make copies of copyrighted works (not including software) for private use. Your friend may lend you a compact disc, you copy it and put it in your car => perfectly legal. You may even make copies for other people, as long as you're not doing it for money (i.e. you charge only the cost of the medium), and only make some limited (3-7) number of copies of any recording. The taxes that are paid on devices that are used for copying are there because of the legality of private copies.
Well, actually I don't think it a crime to sell music for money, it's perfectly ok. But I don't like to be forced to buy lots of CDs for lots of money if I want just a little diversity in my listening habits. Just as I don't like to be forced to buy MS Office for $500 or whatever, only because I need to open/edit an occasional .doc or .xls file. That's why privately copying sofware/music doesn't give me a bad conscience at all - after all, I couldn't afford to buy it all anyway. Make MS Office sell for $50 for private use, CDs for $5, no problem. Probably they'd still make enough money, because people would be more inclined to buy at a reasonable price. Cost for copying _IS_ near zero, so charging such horrendous sums from poor people like me is practically useless. :-)