Saying it was "for the oil", as if the oil was a spoil of war we could easily ship back to the US in one fell swoop, is disingenious. It was for control of the oil so that the withholding of it cannot be used as a weapon against us to strangle our economy (and perhaps to use as a weapon to strangle other economies that threaten to overtake ours).
Control of the oil supply is actually a pretty sensible goal. However, that is not how the war was sold to Congress or the American people. Basically, they lied to us about the reasons for going to war, and are still lying.
Granted, if they had been straight forward, they wouldn't have been allowed to enter a war of aggression, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.
Another problem with lying to push policies through is that the liars seem to eventually believe their own lies. Thus, when the Iraqi people didn't accept us as liberators and dance in the streets, our leadership wasn't prepared (and still doesn't seem to be). There was no plan for winning the peace. If the administration had been honest about it's goals, one would hope they would also have a realistic plan for occupation.
It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.
Mod this up + 5 funny!!
The history of weapons development is littered with hopes that a weapon will make a war "more humane", going back at least to the Gatling gun.
One side effect of our current crop of smart weapons that I haven't seen anyone discuss is the temptation to use them in a "pre-emptive" (read aggressive) war, since they will supposedly minimize civilian deaths. "We're not going after the people of Country X (read Iraq), we want to help them. We're only going after the military of Country X (read Iraq)." The problem we are seeing today is that when the people of Country X don't want you there in the first place, you still have to occupy it with soldiers using conventional weapons. Precision weapons, whether nuclear or not, cannot occupy a country nor "pacify" a population. You need boots on the ground for that.
When we realize the need for boots on the ground, and we realize that those boots are going to have to be there for a long time, taking casualties, maybe we won't be so quick to launch a "pre-emptive" (read aggressive) war.
Your mistake is excusable, since this aspect of the music biz can be arcane.
Publishing rights in music are not the same as distribution rights of musical recordings.
At the risk of further confusing the issue, let me try the following comparison: Publishing rights are like source code and cover the song writing, distribution rights are like the executable binary and cover a specific (recorded) performance. If you want distribute a band's original recording (the binary), you need to secure a distribution license. If you want to create your own version of a song (your band wants to do a cover), you need to secure publishing rights.
It gets more complicated (and the analogy falls apart) when we look at other uses. If you're making a commercial that uses someone else's music, you might need both licenses, one for the song writing and the other for the performance. If the holder of both these rights refuses, you're out of luck. If the holder of the distribution rights refuses, but there is a different holder of the publishing rights who does agree, then you hire a similar sounding band (or studio musicians) to replicate the song.
It's commodoresloat. Soviet Russia was implied in the way he wrote it. That's why you heard it (either in your head or coming from a plant) when you read it.
Re:Your urls don't go to iTMS. Why??
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
Apple is marketing and branding a Music service with the Apple logo. Doesn't matter if the site you actually purchase is only accessable via a non web application.
There's another post somewhere in this discussion that points out that Disney doesn't have a trademark on all cartoon mice. Likewise, Apple Corps doesn't have a trademark on all representations of apples.
Anyway, I hope you can see that it is not completely clear cut, and can be argued either way.
So far they're 2 for 2
2 for 2? This has been in front of a jury twice? A judge ruled in Apple Corps favor? Please don't confuse a settlement with a desicion by a judge or a jury.
At any rate, if you mean that Apple will be forced to settle a third time, you're probably right. I do wonder if Apple will be able to get some concessions out of such a settlement. I kinda doubt that releasing the Beatles' catalogue on iTunes will be one of them, but one never knows.
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
Overall, you're probably right. But in matters of law and in matters of business, a certain amount of precision is desired. Thus, making the distinction between a trademark case and a contract case, which you do, is important. More subtle points are also important. For instance, Apple Corp has not won any of their cases against Apple. They settled them out of court. One might rightly argue that the settlement was favorable to them, but one can also counter that obviously the settlement was satisfactory to both parties. Thus, the phrase "Given that the other two cases they've brought to court on this issue ended with them winning big time. . . " is hyperbolic, misleading, and wrong.
Basically, I'm saying that you don't need to exaggerate or color your evidence to back up your conclusion.
<i>Okay, so hes basking in wealth. I wonder if he tips well. Ive been asking that question a lot lately. Food service is utter hell, and many of the people involved make less then minimum wage. I try to tip well, or not eat out. Tip size is a good measure of person-type.</i>
NICE GUY EDDIE: C'mon, throw in a buck.
MR. PINK: Uh-uh. I don't tip.
NICE GUY EDDIE: Whaddaya mean you don't tip?
MR. PINK: I don't believe in it.
NICE GUY EDDIE: You don't believe in tipping?
MR. BLONDE: (laughing) I love this kid, he's a madman, this guy.
MR. WHITE: Do you have any idea what these ladies make? They make shit.
MR. PINK: Don't give me that. She don't make enough money, she can quit.
<i>Everybody laughs.</i>
NICE GUY EDDIE: I don't even know a Jew who'd have the balls to say that. So let's get this straight. You never ever tip?
MR. PINK: I don't tip because society says I gotta. I tip when somebody deserves a tip. When somebody really puts forth an effort, they deserve a little something extra. But this tipping automatically, that shit's for the birds. As far as I'm concerned, they're just doin their job.
MR. BLUE: Our girl was nice.
MR. PINK: Our girl was okay. She didn't do anything special.
MR. BLUE: What's something special, take ya in the kitchen and suck your dick?
<i> They all laugh.</i>
NICE GUY EDDIE: I'd go over twelve percent for that.
MR. PINK: Look, I ordered coffee. Now we've been here a long fuckin time, and she's only filled my cup three times. When I order coffee, I want it filled six times.
MR. WHITE: What if she's too busy?
MR. PINK: The words "too busy" shouldn't be in a waitress's vocabulary.
NICE GUY EDDIE: Excuse me, Mr. White, but the last thing you need is another cup of coffee.
<i>They all laugh.</i>
MR. PINK: These ladies aren't starvin to death. They make minimum wage. When I worked for minimum wage, I wasn't lucky enough to have a job that society deemed tipworthy.
NICE GUY EDDIE: Ahh, now we're getting down to it. It's not just that he's a cheap bastard--
MR. ORANGE: --It is that too--
NICE GUY EDDIE: --It is that too. But it's also he couldn't get a waiter job. You talk like a pissed off dishwasher: "Fuck those cunts and their fucking tips."
MR. BLUE: So you don't care that they're counting on your tip to live?
Mr. Pink rubs two of his fingers together.
MR. PINK: Do you know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin, playing just for the waitresses.
MR. WHITE: You don't have any idea what you're talking about. These people bust their ass. This is a hard job.
MR. PINK: So's working at McDonald's, but you don't feel the need to tip them. They're servin ya food, you should tip em. But no, society says tip these guys over here, but not those guys over there. That's bullshit.
MR. ORANGE: They work harder than the kids at McDonald's.
MR. PINK: Oh yeah, I don't see them cleaning fryers.
MR. BROWN: These people are taxed on the tips they make. When you stiff 'em, you cost them money.
MR. WHITE: Waitressing is the number one occupation for female non-college graduates in this country. It's the one jab basically any woman can get, and make a living on. The reason is because of tips.
MR. PINK: Fuck all that.
<i>They all laugh.</i>
MR. PINK: Hey, I'm very sorry that thegovernment taxes their tips. That's fucked up. But that ain't my fault. it would appear that waitresses are just one of the many groups the government fucks in the ass on a regular basis. You show me a paper says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. Put it to a vote, I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball. And this non-college bullshit you're telling me, I got two words for that: "Learn to fuckin type." Cause if you're expecting me to help out with t
This is really a wonderfully evil idea. If Jobs bought the publishing rights. he couldn't sell any Beatle recordings, of course, but he could commission other artists to play the songs, then sell those. The question arises, would he get decent artists to record, or actively try to destroy the songs?
Likewise, he could start selling advertising rights really cheap to all and sundry. I wonder how Apple Corp would feel if "Revolution" was used to advertise Popeil's rotisserie chicken gizmo.:Just set and and whoooooooooooo, alright!"
Mind posting a link to the contract that you've read and understood? Then we can see how you reached your conclusion. Otherwise, you're just guessing. Your guess might end up being correct, but for now (absent an actual reading of the contract), it's idle speculation.
Re:Whose trademark has the value?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
That's why, every time you go to the grocery store's produce section, and look at the apples, the Beatles make a penny.
Last I heard, Jackson owned the publishing rights, not the recording rights. So such a deal wouldn't include him, unless Apple opens the iTunes Sheet Music Store.
On the other hand, when my father thinks "Apple", he thinks "fruit".
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
So, if I accuse you of bestiality, that makes you guilty?
Just hypothetically. The negatives are safe. =)
Your urls don't go to iTMS. Why??
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure how many times that this will need to be repeated to sink in, but the URLs you gave do not lead to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). They lead to a section of the apple site for marketing iPod, iTunes, and iTMS. iTMS is only accessible through the iTunes application itself. An ordinary browser won't do it.
Furthermore, unless you've read the contracts and have extensive knowledge of contract law, you cannot positively state that Apple is in breach. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. Have you read the contract at this time? Would you know how to interpret it if you did?
You just about nailed the crux of the problem, the dilemma. Too many lawyers that abuse the system vs. Too few. Under the too few scenario, only the very rich and powerful would have lawyers. The rest of us would be left to fend for themselves.
This is why I am very wary of tort reform, especially as championed by the powerful. It's a fairly obvious attempt to grab more power.
So, yes, The Law is very important. Access to legal representation is only slightly less important.
My understanding of OS X server is that it is basically a bunch of really nice GUI wrappers for free utilities. So, if you really needed an IBM Power5 server, couldn't we assume that you wouldn't need the slick OS X server UI?
Slashdot Mirror
Saying it was "for the oil", as if the oil was a spoil of war we could easily ship back to the US in one fell swoop, is disingenious. It was for control of the oil so that the withholding of it cannot be used as a weapon against us to strangle our economy (and perhaps to use as a weapon to strangle other economies that threaten to overtake ours).
Control of the oil supply is actually a pretty sensible goal. However, that is not how the war was sold to Congress or the American people. Basically, they lied to us about the reasons for going to war, and are still lying.
Granted, if they had been straight forward, they wouldn't have been allowed to enter a war of aggression, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.
Another problem with lying to push policies through is that the liars seem to eventually believe their own lies. Thus, when the Iraqi people didn't accept us as liberators and dance in the streets, our leadership wasn't prepared (and still doesn't seem to be). There was no plan for winning the peace. If the administration had been honest about it's goals, one would hope they would also have a realistic plan for occupation.
While Canada is not a state in the US, you can't deny that they're basically just a territory under our control.
Now, excuse me while I run like hell. =)
It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.
Mod this up + 5 funny!!
The history of weapons development is littered with hopes that a weapon will make a war "more humane", going back at least to the Gatling gun.
One side effect of our current crop of smart weapons that I haven't seen anyone discuss is the temptation to use them in a "pre-emptive" (read aggressive) war, since they will supposedly minimize civilian deaths. "We're not going after the people of Country X (read Iraq), we want to help them. We're only going after the military of Country X (read Iraq)." The problem we are seeing today is that when the people of Country X don't want you there in the first place, you still have to occupy it with soldiers using conventional weapons. Precision weapons, whether nuclear or not, cannot occupy a country nor "pacify" a population. You need boots on the ground for that.
When we realize the need for boots on the ground, and we realize that those boots are going to have to be there for a long time, taking casualties, maybe we won't be so quick to launch a "pre-emptive" (read aggressive) war.
Yes, but I'm sure that Microsoft could easily change its mind. AKA - pull the rug out from under an Open Source project that uses such a feature.
I haven't actually examined the license, but according to MS's FAQ, these licenses are perpetual.
So, can we have your liver?
Your mistake is excusable, since this aspect of the music biz can be arcane.
Publishing rights in music are not the same as distribution rights of musical recordings.
At the risk of further confusing the issue, let me try the following comparison: Publishing rights are like source code and cover the song writing, distribution rights are like the executable binary and cover a specific (recorded) performance. If you want distribute a band's original recording (the binary), you need to secure a distribution license. If you want to create your own version of a song (your band wants to do a cover), you need to secure publishing rights.
It gets more complicated (and the analogy falls apart) when we look at other uses. If you're making a commercial that uses someone else's music, you might need both licenses, one for the song writing and the other for the performance. If the holder of both these rights refuses, you're out of luck. If the holder of the distribution rights refuses, but there is a different holder of the publishing rights who does agree, then you hire a similar sounding band (or studio musicians) to replicate the song.
Whew! =)
It's commodoresloat. Soviet Russia was implied in the way he wrote it. That's why you heard it (either in your head or coming from a plant) when you read it.
Yesterday IBM announced they were open sourcing their voice technology, and already today, we've got a talking plant implementation!
Where it ultimately came from nobody knows.
It's probably safe to say that close to all energy on earth comes from the sun, either directly or indirectly.
Think of the benefits to the bean growing industry.
I predict there will be a Terence and Phillip public service announcement for wind power.
I'm not a "fucking liberal"
I'm Australian.
Somewhere in Australia, someone has a new sig.
Apple is marketing and branding a Music service with the Apple logo. Doesn't matter if the site you actually purchase is only accessable via a non web application.
There's another post somewhere in this discussion that points out that Disney doesn't have a trademark on all cartoon mice. Likewise, Apple Corps doesn't have a trademark on all representations of apples.
Anyway, I hope you can see that it is not completely clear cut, and can be argued either way.
So far they're 2 for 2
2 for 2? This has been in front of a jury twice? A judge ruled in Apple Corps favor? Please don't confuse a settlement with a desicion by a judge or a jury.
At any rate, if you mean that Apple will be forced to settle a third time, you're probably right. I do wonder if Apple will be able to get some concessions out of such a settlement. I kinda doubt that releasing the Beatles' catalogue on iTunes will be one of them, but one never knows.
Overall, you're probably right. But in matters of law and in matters of business, a certain amount of precision is desired. Thus, making the distinction between a trademark case and a contract case, which you do, is important. More subtle points are also important. For instance, Apple Corp has not won any of their cases against Apple. They settled them out of court. One might rightly argue that the settlement was favorable to them, but one can also counter that obviously the settlement was satisfactory to both parties. Thus, the phrase "Given that the other two cases they've brought to court on this issue ended with them winning big time. . . " is hyperbolic, misleading, and wrong.
Basically, I'm saying that you don't need to exaggerate or color your evidence to back up your conclusion.
Sorry if I seem nit picky.
<i>Okay, so hes basking in wealth. I wonder if he tips well. Ive been asking that question a lot lately. Food service is utter hell, and many of the people involved make less then minimum wage. I try to tip well, or not eat out. Tip size is a good measure of person-type.</i>
NICE GUY EDDIE: C'mon, throw in a buck.
MR. PINK: Uh-uh. I don't tip.
NICE GUY EDDIE: Whaddaya mean you don't tip?
MR. PINK: I don't believe in it.
NICE GUY EDDIE: You don't believe in tipping?
MR. BLONDE: (laughing) I love this kid, he's a madman, this guy.
MR. WHITE: Do you have any idea what these ladies make? They make shit.
MR. PINK: Don't give me that. She don't make enough money, she can quit.
<i>Everybody laughs.</i>
NICE GUY EDDIE: I don't even know a Jew who'd have the balls to say that. So let's get this straight. You never ever tip?
MR. PINK: I don't tip because society says I gotta. I tip when somebody deserves a tip. When somebody really puts forth an effort, they deserve a little something extra. But this tipping automatically, that shit's for the birds. As far as I'm concerned, they're just doin their job.
MR. BLUE: Our girl was nice.
MR. PINK: Our girl was okay. She didn't do anything special.
MR. BLUE: What's something special, take ya in the kitchen and suck your dick?
<i> They all laugh.</i>
NICE GUY EDDIE: I'd go over twelve percent for that.
MR. PINK: Look, I ordered coffee. Now we've been here a long fuckin time, and she's only filled my cup three times. When I order coffee, I want it filled six times.
MR. WHITE: What if she's too busy?
MR. PINK: The words "too busy" shouldn't be in a waitress's vocabulary.
NICE GUY EDDIE: Excuse me, Mr. White, but the last thing you need is another cup of coffee.
<i>They all laugh.</i>
MR. PINK: These ladies aren't starvin to death. They make minimum wage. When I worked for minimum wage, I wasn't lucky enough to have a job that society deemed tipworthy.
NICE GUY EDDIE: Ahh, now we're getting down to it. It's not just that he's a cheap bastard--
MR. ORANGE: --It is that too--
NICE GUY EDDIE: --It is that too. But it's also he couldn't get a waiter job. You talk like a pissed off dishwasher: "Fuck those cunts and their fucking tips."
MR. BLUE: So you don't care that they're counting on your tip to live?
Mr. Pink rubs two of his fingers together.
MR. PINK: Do you know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin, playing just for the waitresses.
MR. WHITE: You don't have any idea what you're talking about. These people bust their ass. This is a hard job.
MR. PINK: So's working at McDonald's, but you don't feel the need to tip them. They're servin ya food, you should tip em. But no, society says tip these guys over here, but not those guys over there. That's bullshit.
MR. ORANGE: They work harder than the kids at McDonald's.
MR. PINK: Oh yeah, I don't see them cleaning fryers.
MR. BROWN: These people are taxed on the tips they make. When you stiff 'em, you cost them money.
MR. WHITE: Waitressing is the number one occupation for female non-college graduates in this country. It's the one jab basically any woman can get, and make a living on. The reason is because of tips.
MR. PINK: Fuck all that.
<i>They all laugh.</i>
MR. PINK: Hey, I'm very sorry that thegovernment taxes their tips. That's fucked up. But that ain't my fault. it would appear that waitresses are just one of the many groups the government fucks in the ass on a regular basis. You show me a paper says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. Put it to a vote, I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball. And this non-college bullshit you're telling me, I got two words for that: "Learn to fuckin type." Cause if you're expecting me to help out with t
This is really a wonderfully evil idea. If Jobs bought the publishing rights. he couldn't sell any Beatle recordings, of course, but he could commission other artists to play the songs, then sell those. The question arises, would he get decent artists to record, or actively try to destroy the songs?
:Just set and and whoooooooooooo, alright!"
Likewise, he could start selling advertising rights really cheap to all and sundry. I wonder how Apple Corp would feel if "Revolution" was used to advertise Popeil's rotisserie chicken gizmo.
That would be a pretty nice bargaining chip.
Mind posting a link to the contract that you've read and understood? Then we can see how you reached your conclusion. Otherwise, you're just guessing. Your guess might end up being correct, but for now (absent an actual reading of the contract), it's idle speculation.
That's why, every time you go to the grocery store's produce section, and look at the apples, the Beatles make a penny.
Last I heard, Jackson owned the publishing rights, not the recording rights. So such a deal wouldn't include him, unless Apple opens the iTunes Sheet Music Store.
On the other hand, when my father thinks "Apple", he thinks "fruit".
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
So, if I accuse you of bestiality, that makes you guilty?
Just hypothetically. The negatives are safe. =)
I'm not sure how many times that this will need to be repeated to sink in, but the URLs you gave do not lead to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). They lead to a section of the apple site for marketing iPod, iTunes, and iTMS. iTMS is only accessible through the iTunes application itself. An ordinary browser won't do it.
Furthermore, unless you've read the contracts and have extensive knowledge of contract law, you cannot positively state that Apple is in breach. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. Have you read the contract at this time? Would you know how to interpret it if you did?
You just about nailed the crux of the problem, the dilemma. Too many lawyers that abuse the system vs. Too few. Under the too few scenario, only the very rich and powerful would have lawyers. The rest of us would be left to fend for themselves.
This is why I am very wary of tort reform, especially as championed by the powerful. It's a fairly obvious attempt to grab more power.
So, yes, The Law is very important. Access to legal representation is only slightly less important.
That's a pretty rude thing to do to someone without provocation, even if they are a Real Basic developer.
My understanding of OS X server is that it is basically a bunch of really nice GUI wrappers for free utilities. So, if you really needed an IBM Power5 server, couldn't we assume that you wouldn't need the slick OS X server UI?
Why is it you have to ask a really dumb question to get a submission posted to /. anyhow?
Remember, there are no dumb questions, only dumb curious people.