"guns that use gun powder and bullets will not be used by modern militaries; "
Don't be so sure. At its root, a gun is a device that exists "here", but has an effect "there". In order for that to happen, you need energy, and lots of it. And currently only chemical reactions provide the energy density needed for the weapon system to be small enough to be useful. The materials and methods may change, and are - electrical priming, caseless ammunition, exotic materials - but until we can find something with a higher energy density, we're still going to be using a chemical reaction to impart energy to an object, which transfers that energy to a target. Or uses it to deliver a payload.
"...and that is all the known atomic elements that would remain solid. It's possible elements 99+ may remain solid but Kalzium doesn't have their melting points and it's doubtful they would occur in nature anyway."
Hmmm...but if the planet was that close to the star, wouldn't it also be bombarded constantly with an enormous amount of high energy particles? And isn't that how we "make" the transuranics?
Or even better, if the elements condense differentially, that would deposit uranium in nearly pure formations, which might lead to criticality?
So we have a planet that is the Biblical Hell on one side, Dante's Inferno on the other, and periodically a significant portion of Dante's side blows itself up?
I want to go there sooooo bad! (And why do I have this sudden urge to rent High Plains Drifter?
The OP stated that he was an "EU Citizen". In making such a claim, and by taking such a paternalistic attitude, he opens himself up to an observation about the relative maturity of the 2 political entities in question.
Or, maybe you should take reading comprehension classes again?
You mean like how the ITU act as censors of the telephone network?
Except they don't."
From Wikipedia: "The International Telecommunication Union is the second-oldest international organization still in existence (the oldest being the Rhine Commission), established to standardize and regulate international radio and telecommunications. It was founded as the International Telegraph Union in Paris on 17 May 1865. Its main tasks include standardization, allocation of the radio spectrum, and organizing interconnection arrangements between different countries to allow international phone calls -- in which regard it performs for telecommunications a similar function to what the UPU performs for postal services. It is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, and has its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, next to the main United Nations campus."
The UN inherited an already existing organization with a limited mandate. They set standards. They can't censor the telephone network - they don't control any infrastructure. But what is being proposed is to GIVE them control over some infrastructure.
So the proposal is to give infrastructure and control to an organization that has never had such responsibilities, which is part of a larger organization which is manifestly unsuited for a "hands off" approach. All because of a fear of the US exerting control in a manner that would be ill suited to the purposes of nations that have far more restrictions on freedoms of speech and expression.
This isn't about the idea that the US Government could "take control" of the internet - it's about the fact that other nations can't take control of the internet.
Aside from your blatant paternalism (the US has existed a lot longer than the EU has), you're happiness translates to me as "Good - now the EU can have a shot at exerting control."
As a US citizen, I'm completely unsurprised by the EU claiming to care about other people while consolidating power in itself.
The chorus calling for the "end to US control over the Internet" will morph into the "end of ICAAN control, because they are not subject to oversight." Withe the "solution" being the same - UN oversight.
They are not looking for more freedom - they want more control.
"I find your story interesting. The 'sociopathic kids', you mention that they're harder on their friends than in actual competition. Would it then be a fair assumption to say that they're in it to inflict pain on their friends rather than compete? And to complete the thought: would they be less interested in competing against strangers because their opponent is a stranger and thus the infliction of pain is less gratifying?
And what exactly do the parents convey that lead you to your assumption? Anything specific? I'm asking because this intrigues me and I'd like to know more about how you arrived at your conclusions."
The one particular kid I was thinking about would immobilize his opponent and then do something to cause pain to him, but not advance his position. One of his favorites was to lock a kid up and then grind his chin into the other kid's thoracic spine - it hurts a lot. I couldn't really figure out why all the kids complained about him until I watchd very closely. When I saw what was going on, I stopped it and pulled him aside, and asked:
"When wrestling, why do we inflict pain?" "To hurt the other guy" "Ok, why would we want to hurt them?" "To make them freak out and give up."
When I explained that the proper use of pain was to "convince" your opponent to move the way you want him to move, i.e. toward his back, he looked genuinely dumbfounded. Since I know he didn't get his ideas from his coaches, I went to his dad and explained the situation and asked him to try and reinforce with his son that the point of wrestling is not to go out and hurt somebody. His father became immediately defensive, accusing me of telling my own son to go out and beat someone up - it was the tail end of a conversation about self defense with my son when he asked what to do about bullies when all other options fail (The main kid he was talking about was this guy's son!). His general attitude was - "My kid's not doing anything wrong."
The cosmic irony is that the kid was an awful wrestler who got pinned every single match in under 30 seconds. But after my talk with him he started winning - apparently he figured out that he wasn't going to be able to win by focusing on inflicting pain, so he tried a few moves. As a result, he and his father became much more enthusiastic and not only is the son back this year, his Dad has volunteered to coach. Serves me right for trying to help the little bastard.
"Well I guess it's a good thing that I, as a guy with ADD, was on the Debate Team rather than the Wrestling Team in high school.:)"
I have ADD as well, although it was undiagnosed when I wrestled. I was a fair wrestler; the only affect the ADD had on me in that context was that I hyper-focused during the match. It manifested itself in the fact that I was wholly oblivious to outside stimulus - I didn't hear the crowd, the announcer, or my coach - only the referee's whistle.
In competitive wrestling, that's not such a bad thing. But the kids I coach are in an instructional league - the whole point is to learn. They can't do that if they can't hear the coach telling them what moves to do during a match.
"So, what happens in-between the time you abolish the DOE, and think up your new solution? We just close all the schools for a few years? And what do you do about all the disenfranchised (and now unemployed) teachers and school support staff?"
Umm, how about doing what we did before the DOE existed? Which has only been since the Carter Administration. You know, right before the point where US schooling began its slide?
Correlation may not necessarily mean causation, but is it really wise to ignore the inverse relationship between Federal involvement in education and school quality?
Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
There's a company that will load your ashes into shotgun shells, ostensibly so your buddies can "spread" your ashes over your favorite hunting ground. I was thinking of using my ashes as shot buffer in #000 buckshot and kept in the home defense shotgun. Just doing my last little part to help defend the family.
Re:What to do with our corporeal remains
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
My instructions to my wife are:
1) Donate every organ they'll take
2) If you bury me, use a pine box. Spend the money you save on the coffin for a party. Or food. Or a car. Whatever. Just spend as little money as possible while meeting our obligations to the rest of my relatives. (I'm Italian - you can't NOT have a funeral and wake, or else my previously deceased relatives will hunt me down in the afterlife.)
Re:Geek funeral?
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I admire your sentiments and feel the same way, which makes the irony in your statement even more pointed. The reality is that it's far more likely for an adult to receive a teenager's heart than vice versa.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
"If I'm at my kid's soccer game watching him run the ball down toward the goal and you light up a cigarette, should I be expected to move my seat to avoid your second-hand smoke, and possibly miss my kid scoring the winning goal?"
No, you are expected to say "excuse me, could you smoke elsewhere? The smoke really bothers me." Or is actually interacting with someone such a burden? Will his saying "No, I don't think so" traumatize you?
Treating others as individuals worthy of interaction is a sign of maturity and strength; weakness is expecting others to get you what you want.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 0, Troll
"Have you ever blown into an automotive gas analyser? One lungful of cigarette smoke contains as much unburnt hydrocarbon as a 1988 Volvo 340 produces in three minutes of running at 2500rpm."
Well, since the average cigarette lasts longer than 3 minutes, that would mean the cigarette pollutes less than the Volvo on a time basis.
Or it means that you took an invalid comparison and ran with it, looking just as silly as the guy you were arguing against.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
"So, my new neighbours are heavy smokers. The prevailing winds blow their smoke straight into my house. Given your maxim that nobody should be able to tell anyone else how to live their life - so I can't dicate they give up smoking and they can't dictate I install air filters or a giant windbreak or move elsewhere - what solution does the wise prince propose that still lets my family have clean air?"
How about, oh, asking? Negotiation? Has it really gotten so bad that the only choices you can think of involve using the law (and, by extension, force) to mediate disagreements between people? If it doesn't work what have you lost? Pride? Face? How insecure must a person be to need laws in place to protect them from the trauma of being told "No" in person? You can always appeal to the court system later.
"Yeah, I think more people should leave their bodies to necrophiliacs! I mean, let those poor souls have their piece of fun!"
Necrophilia: When "piece of ass" isn't a euphemism.
Re:Geek funeral?
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Just ensure that a legally binding contract ensures that you'll be kept for X amount of time. "
Contracts survive the death of one of the parties if there is an obligation OTHER than a personal one. So if a company contracts with you to preserve your body after death, it could be considered a personal service, which they would be released from upon your death.
I'm sure that the contracts with these companies are full of legal jiggery-pokery to "ensure" the continuing obligation, but there's a practical matter as well - if the company decides to dump your mortal remains in the trash
a) who has standing to sue for breach of contract? b) what would they sue for? The body is already rotting somewhere, so suing for specific performance is precluded. Pain and suffering? Is your great-great-great-granddaughter really going to be all that fussed about the fact that her ancestors corpse is, well, acting like a corpse? Actual damages? If anything, the company saved your descendants money by not reviving you. Return of the money originally paid? To whom? Your estate hasn't existed for a century.
Read some Larry Niven. Dead is dead, and whatever people thought would be waiting for them after their "revival" certainly won't be what they expected.
I coach youth wrestling and see something similar. There are some kids who just cannot take practice against a teammate seriously - they joke around, their attention wanders, and the ADD kids become downright dangerous. But in a match, against a stranger, it's like their doppelganger stepped onto the mat - very focused, executing moved with speed and precision they never showed elsewhere. And the ADD kids change to - now they hyper-focus, which isn't very good from a coaches standpoint.
But then there are the other kids that, if anything, are harder on their friends in practice than they are in a match - they enjoy inflicting pain, but in a match they would be DQ'd. You know - sociopaths. And when you talk to their parents about it, you find out exactly where the kid gets it from.
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq."
"For the record it's just like the record companies. They own the entire brand of their artists, unless the artists actually negotiated (very, very rare) other terms. How does this scenario play out when we swap sports players with musical artists?"
It actually plays out in the (older) players favor. There is a suit making it's way through the courts right now regarding revenues from electronic distribution of music recorded before the early 70's. Prior to that time, the standard record company contract didn't address licensing at all. And one of the basics if contract and licensing law is that, if you don't expressly waive/license a right, you retain it. So the artists who produced recordings under the old contracts are claiming that the labels have no right to license those recordings AT ALL. And, since the labels agreement with Apple and Amazon are licensing agreements, the labels owe them a metric fuckton of money.
Of course, the labels are fighting this by saying that they are NOT "licensing" the music to Apple and Amazon; they are "selling recordings" just like shipping CD's to Wal Mart. Aside from being a ridiculous argument from a technical standpoint (so apple keeps a million computer files of the same Beatles song and deletes them one by one when a "copy" gets sold?) it's a risky argument from a legal standpoint. If the labels get a win, and the court declares that the labels are selling copies, 2 things happen: 1) It takes Doctrine of First Sale and sticks it up the RIAA's ass vis a vis "piracy", 2) More importantly (IMHO) it cracks open the terms of the original contracts. The artists will argue that clauses in the contracts regarding "10% for breakage, 10% for pressing", etc., are unconscionable, and so should be stricken or at least renegotiated. It's one thing to create a legal fiction that a bunch of data is an individual "record"; it's another thing to say that these "records" get broken in shipping and use vinyl and plastic for distribution.
And, for your pleasure, a tie in to my sig. The main reason that "WKRP" has been so scarce in reruns and DVD collections is that, during their prime-time run they licensed the use of a LOT of rock music - the first TV show to do so on that scale. But when the licenses ran out, renewing them was a nightmare because they couldn't just go to the labels - the licensing rights had been disbursed all over the place, from the Estate of Janis Joplin to some band member who's now an insurance salesman in Utah.
Don't forget France and West Germany. Remember it was the French that basically said, in the runup to Iraq, "It doesn't matter what the inspectors find - military intervention is not an option."
Hindsight puts them in the right, but it certainly wasn't because of their noble, peace loving nature - they were some of the biggest cheaters in the Oil for Food program and had a huge vested interest in the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
"guns that use gun powder and bullets will not be used by modern militaries; "
Don't be so sure. At its root, a gun is a device that exists "here", but has an effect "there". In order for that to happen, you need energy, and lots of it. And currently only chemical reactions provide the energy density needed for the weapon system to be small enough to be useful. The materials and methods may change, and are - electrical priming, caseless ammunition, exotic materials - but until we can find something with a higher energy density, we're still going to be using a chemical reaction to impart energy to an object, which transfers that energy to a target. Or uses it to deliver a payload.
"...and that is all the known atomic elements that would remain solid. It's possible elements 99+ may remain solid but Kalzium doesn't have their melting points and it's doubtful they would occur in nature anyway."
Hmmm...but if the planet was that close to the star, wouldn't it also be bombarded constantly with an enormous amount of high energy particles? And isn't that how we "make" the transuranics?
Or even better, if the elements condense differentially, that would deposit uranium in nearly pure formations, which might lead to criticality?
So we have a planet that is the Biblical Hell on one side, Dante's Inferno on the other, and periodically a significant portion of Dante's side blows itself up?
I want to go there sooooo bad! (And why do I have this sudden urge to rent High Plains Drifter?
Neither the potato gun nor the canon are "firearms" according to BATFE.
"How to Make Noise and Break Things"
Thermite: intro class
Potato Gun: that will take about a month.
Tannerite (look it up)
Black Powder
Muzzle loading canon
All of these things could be a wonderful teaching tool for all sorts of physics and chemistry.
And social science when everyone else freaks while your kids stare with rapt attention.
And then for Political Science when your ass gets arrested to doing things that are perfectly legal.
"Maybe take history classes again?"
The OP stated that he was an "EU Citizen". In making such a claim, and by taking such a paternalistic attitude, he opens himself up to an observation about the relative maturity of the 2 political entities in question.
Or, maybe you should take reading comprehension classes again?
You mean like how the ITU act as censors of the telephone network?
Except they don't."
From Wikipedia:
"The International Telecommunication Union is the second-oldest international organization still in existence (the oldest being the Rhine Commission), established to standardize and regulate international radio and telecommunications. It was founded as the International Telegraph Union in Paris on 17 May 1865. Its main tasks include standardization, allocation of the radio spectrum, and organizing interconnection arrangements between different countries to allow international phone calls -- in which regard it performs for telecommunications a similar function to what the UPU performs for postal services. It is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, and has its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, next to the main United Nations campus."
The UN inherited an already existing organization with a limited mandate. They set standards. They can't censor the telephone network - they don't control any infrastructure. But what is being proposed is to GIVE them control over some infrastructure.
So the proposal is to give infrastructure and control to an organization that has never had such responsibilities, which is part of a larger organization which is manifestly unsuited for a "hands off" approach. All because of a fear of the US exerting control in a manner that would be ill suited to the purposes of nations that have far more restrictions on freedoms of speech and expression.
This isn't about the idea that the US Government could "take control" of the internet - it's about the fact that other nations can't take control of the internet.
Aside from your blatant paternalism (the US has existed a lot longer than the EU has), you're happiness translates to me as "Good - now the EU can have a shot at exerting control."
As a US citizen, I'm completely unsurprised by the EU claiming to care about other people while consolidating power in itself.
The chorus calling for the "end to US control over the Internet" will morph into the "end of ICAAN control, because they are not subject to oversight." Withe the "solution" being the same - UN oversight.
They are not looking for more freedom - they want more control.
"I find your story interesting. The 'sociopathic kids', you mention that they're harder on their friends than in actual competition. Would it then be a fair assumption to say that they're in it to inflict pain on their friends rather than compete? And to complete the thought: would they be less interested in competing against strangers because their opponent is a stranger and thus the infliction of pain is less gratifying?
And what exactly do the parents convey that lead you to your assumption? Anything specific? I'm asking because this intrigues me and I'd like to know more about how you arrived at your conclusions."
The one particular kid I was thinking about would immobilize his opponent and then do something to cause pain to him, but not advance his position. One of his favorites was to lock a kid up and then grind his chin into the other kid's thoracic spine - it hurts a lot. I couldn't really figure out why all the kids complained about him until I watchd very closely. When I saw what was going on, I stopped it and pulled him aside, and asked:
"When wrestling, why do we inflict pain?"
"To hurt the other guy"
"Ok, why would we want to hurt them?"
"To make them freak out and give up."
When I explained that the proper use of pain was to "convince" your opponent to move the way you want him to move, i.e. toward his back, he looked genuinely dumbfounded. Since I know he didn't get his ideas from his coaches, I went to his dad and explained the situation and asked him to try and reinforce with his son that the point of wrestling is not to go out and hurt somebody. His father became immediately defensive, accusing me of telling my own son to go out and beat someone up - it was the tail end of a conversation about self defense with my son when he asked what to do about bullies when all other options fail (The main kid he was talking about was this guy's son!). His general attitude was - "My kid's not doing anything wrong."
The cosmic irony is that the kid was an awful wrestler who got pinned every single match in under 30 seconds. But after my talk with him he started winning - apparently he figured out that he wasn't going to be able to win by focusing on inflicting pain, so he tried a few moves. As a result, he and his father became much more enthusiastic and not only is the son back this year, his Dad has volunteered to coach. Serves me right for trying to help the little bastard.
"Well I guess it's a good thing that I, as a guy with ADD, was on the Debate Team rather than the Wrestling Team in high school.:)"
I have ADD as well, although it was undiagnosed when I wrestled. I was a fair wrestler; the only affect the ADD had on me in that context was that I hyper-focused during the match. It manifested itself in the fact that I was wholly oblivious to outside stimulus - I didn't hear the crowd, the announcer, or my coach - only the referee's whistle.
In competitive wrestling, that's not such a bad thing. But the kids I coach are in an instructional league - the whole point is to learn. They can't do that if they can't hear the coach telling them what moves to do during a match.
"So, what happens in-between the time you abolish the DOE, and think up your new solution? We just close all the schools for a few years? And what do you do about all the disenfranchised (and now unemployed) teachers and school support staff?"
Umm, how about doing what we did before the DOE existed? Which has only been since the Carter Administration. You know, right before the point where US schooling began its slide?
Correlation may not necessarily mean causation, but is it really wise to ignore the inverse relationship between Federal involvement in education and school quality?
There's a company that will load your ashes into shotgun shells, ostensibly so your buddies can "spread" your ashes over your favorite hunting ground. I was thinking of using my ashes as shot buffer in #000 buckshot and kept in the home defense shotgun. Just doing my last little part to help defend the family.
My instructions to my wife are:
1) Donate every organ they'll take
2) If you bury me, use a pine box. Spend the money you save on the coffin for a party. Or food. Or a car. Whatever. Just spend as little money as possible while meeting our obligations to the rest of my relatives. (I'm Italian - you can't NOT have a funeral and wake, or else my previously deceased relatives will hunt me down in the afterlife.)
I admire your sentiments and feel the same way, which makes the irony in your statement even more pointed. The reality is that it's far more likely for an adult to receive a teenager's heart than vice versa.
"If I'm at my kid's soccer game watching him run the ball down toward the goal and you light up a cigarette, should I be expected to move my seat to avoid your second-hand smoke, and possibly miss my kid scoring the winning goal?"
No, you are expected to say "excuse me, could you smoke elsewhere? The smoke really bothers me." Or is actually interacting with someone such a burden? Will his saying "No, I don't think so" traumatize you?
Treating others as individuals worthy of interaction is a sign of maturity and strength; weakness is expecting others to get you what you want.
Well, since the average cigarette lasts longer than 3 minutes, that would mean the cigarette pollutes less than the Volvo on a time basis.
Or it means that you took an invalid comparison and ran with it, looking just as silly as the guy you were arguing against.
"So, my new neighbours are heavy smokers. The prevailing winds blow their smoke straight into my house. Given your maxim that nobody should be able to tell anyone else how to live their life - so I can't dicate they give up smoking and they can't dictate I install air filters or a giant windbreak or move elsewhere - what solution does the wise prince propose that still lets my family have clean air?"
How about, oh, asking? Negotiation? Has it really gotten so bad that the only choices you can think of involve using the law (and, by extension, force) to mediate disagreements between people? If it doesn't work what have you lost? Pride? Face? How insecure must a person be to need laws in place to protect them from the trauma of being told "No" in person? You can always appeal to the court system later.
Necrophilia: When "piece of ass" isn't a euphemism.
"Just ensure that a legally binding contract ensures that you'll be kept for X amount of time. "
Contracts survive the death of one of the parties if there is an obligation OTHER than a personal one. So if a company contracts with you to preserve your body after death, it could be considered a personal service, which they would be released from upon your death.
I'm sure that the contracts with these companies are full of legal jiggery-pokery to "ensure" the continuing obligation, but there's a practical matter as well - if the company decides to dump your mortal remains in the trash
a) who has standing to sue for breach of contract?
b) what would they sue for? The body is already rotting somewhere, so suing for specific performance is precluded. Pain and suffering? Is your great-great-great-granddaughter really going to be all that fussed about the fact that her ancestors corpse is, well, acting like a corpse? Actual damages? If anything, the company saved your descendants money by not reviving you. Return of the money originally paid? To whom? Your estate hasn't existed for a century.
Read some Larry Niven. Dead is dead, and whatever people thought would be waiting for them after their "revival" certainly won't be what they expected.
So then I guess Trend is a paid Domme: you pay her, and she fucks you.
I coach youth wrestling and see something similar. There are some kids who just cannot take practice against a teammate seriously - they joke around, their attention wanders, and the ADD kids become downright dangerous. But in a match, against a stranger, it's like their doppelganger stepped onto the mat - very focused, executing moved with speed and precision they never showed elsewhere. And the ADD kids change to - now they hyper-focus, which isn't very good from a coaches standpoint.
But then there are the other kids that, if anything, are harder on their friends in practice than they are in a match - they enjoy inflicting pain, but in a match they would be DQ'd. You know - sociopaths. And when you talk to their parents about it, you find out exactly where the kid gets it from.
"as a result of repeated and frequent sexual stimulation post-pubescent,"
'Scuse me?
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq."
Jacques Chirac, Monday, March 10, 2003
Suck it, bitch.
"For the record it's just like the record companies. They own the entire brand of their artists, unless the artists actually negotiated (very, very rare) other terms. How does this scenario play out when we swap sports players with musical artists?"
It actually plays out in the (older) players favor. There is a suit making it's way through the courts right now regarding revenues from electronic distribution of music recorded before the early 70's. Prior to that time, the standard record company contract didn't address licensing at all. And one of the basics if contract and licensing law is that, if you don't expressly waive/license a right, you retain it. So the artists who produced recordings under the old contracts are claiming that the labels have no right to license those recordings AT ALL. And, since the labels agreement with Apple and Amazon are licensing agreements, the labels owe them a metric fuckton of money.
Of course, the labels are fighting this by saying that they are NOT "licensing" the music to Apple and Amazon; they are "selling recordings" just like shipping CD's to Wal Mart. Aside from being a ridiculous argument from a technical standpoint (so apple keeps a million computer files of the same Beatles song and deletes them one by one when a "copy" gets sold?) it's a risky argument from a legal standpoint. If the labels get a win, and the court declares that the labels are selling copies, 2 things happen:
1) It takes Doctrine of First Sale and sticks it up the RIAA's ass vis a vis "piracy",
2) More importantly (IMHO) it cracks open the terms of the original contracts. The artists will argue that clauses in the contracts regarding "10% for breakage, 10% for pressing", etc., are unconscionable, and so should be stricken or at least renegotiated. It's one thing to create a legal fiction that a bunch of data is an individual "record"; it's another thing to say that these "records" get broken in shipping and use vinyl and plastic for distribution.
And, for your pleasure, a tie in to my sig. The main reason that "WKRP" has been so scarce in reruns and DVD collections is that, during their prime-time run they licensed the use of a LOT of rock music - the first TV show to do so on that scale. But when the licenses ran out, renewing them was a nightmare because they couldn't just go to the labels - the licensing rights had been disbursed all over the place, from the Estate of Janis Joplin to some band member who's now an insurance salesman in Utah.
Don't forget France and West Germany. Remember it was the French that basically said, in the runup to Iraq, "It doesn't matter what the inspectors find - military intervention is not an option."
Hindsight puts them in the right, but it certainly wasn't because of their noble, peace loving nature - they were some of the biggest cheaters in the Oil for Food program and had a huge vested interest in the status quo.