Slashdot Mirror

Here is one summary of the population figures. I believe more recent studies lower these figures even further. Meaning that fertility is expect to decline even fast than was thought, and we might see maximum population sometime between 2050-2080, with a max somewhere around 10 million. Population will not grow exponentially, infact it never has. If you look at the last 2000 years and the population estimates we have, a linear function is a much better fit. I beleive Julian Simon has written about these long term population trends.

Remember, bredding humans is more complicated than breeding bacteria.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

who's kofi?

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN.

1. It is not objectively wrong to prevent free speech when the person being "oppressed" can freely leave their oppressors with no consiquence (as exists in Japan, though not in most Islamic states).
   
   I don't agree with this, but even if i did, the current subject of discussion is Russia. Russia is very large. It is not particularly easy to leave Russia. Ask the province of Chechnia, sometime, about the time they've had in attempting to leave Russia (That war is still going on , by the way)
2. Re: your comment on sept. 11: I would say that killing several thousand mostly innocent civilians unrelated to nearly anything because you consider certain actions of their culture immoral, just to hurt that culture's economy, is objectively wrong no matter whatthe context. Are you trying to disagree with this? Or am i just confused? Death is sometimes unavoidable for the greater good. This is not the case with september 11; if the terrorists had any goals other than causing hurt, there were many far more effective ways of solving those goals. There are lots and lots of ways to effect positive change in america. Crashing airplanes into public buildings is not one of them. "An eye for an eye" is not a universal ideal either, and it is a road that leads nowhere worthwhile.

Check out article 19 of the declaration of human rights, and you will see that although Australia does not have a 'freedom of speach' or 'bill of rights' in their constitution, they do have something similar. Since Australia is part of the UN, it is meant to be respecting human rights.

First, thanks for your reply. You seem quite considerate and thoughtful in your response.

Second, I wasn't aware of the size of the military aid USA was giving Egypt. (I presume it is large, since you brought it up.)

As for the physical pressure part, this is a legitimization of physical harm to suspects. I truely resent that, and there have been numerous reports in the media of rather unorthodox investigation methods used by the Israeli police and military.

Regarding the settlers part, I'd recommend having a look at
History of the palestine problem. It is IMO interesting to note that the palestinians have always been forgotten, just like the jews. However, the Jews was finally remembered in 1948.

The Israeli settlements were started in '67, after the Six Day War. There have been numerous UN Security Council resolutions against it, but still Israel has accelerated it (until very recently at least, I'm not updated on the statistics here). If you base your view on this subject on the result of a war in '48, shouldn't we also just ask the jews who immigrated in the 20's and 40's to move back to their original countries and then create a state, accepting only native jews and palestines as citizens? Remember that over 750' Palestines was forced to flee after that war, and another 400-500' or so after '67. That amounts to over 1 000 000 people.

I agree with you that suicide bombings are a disgusting and horrible way of 'fighting', killing civilians even worse. Both sides go way back here.

However, the PA has only light arms, not at all suitable for warfare in the 21st century. Still, some applaud when weapons bought by the Palestinians are seized by Israeli army or others. Also, the results of the Intifada has not been anything to talk either, so throwing rocks are out of the question. That leaves them with quite simple, yet disgusting, measures.

As for Sharon being personal responsible or not, the tone in international nowadays seems to clearly put responsibility not only on those doing the actual killings, but also those who support it.

There is unfortunately no easy solution to the middle east conflict in general, and the palestine problem in particular. I only do hope that PLO get Hamas under control, and that the Israelis elect a somewhat less hawkish govermnent.

"None of the Christian texts you quote are Church canon."

Great. That is relevant how? Feel free to show me Church canon that OK's abortion. You won't find it. In fact, the only actual evidence you will find is a universal condemnation of the act. But, feel free to link to Church canon and prove me wrong.

"You see, such definitions are all arbitrary."

Well, if you really believe this, prove it. Prevent yourself from, say, respirating on a cellular level. Or maintaining homeostasis. After a few minutes, your corpse would prove my point more eloquently than I ever could.

"Technically each living cell is life, yet we don't generally think of it that way."

Really? I have never met anyone who would accept a transplant of, say, dead tissue.

"*It's all arbitrary*, a matter of opinion and speculation and semantics, not of fact."

I'll grant that your reasoning is arbitrary, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there is, at one point in time, the generation of a new member of the human race, with a complete and unique set of genes. The moment is conception.

Of course, if it really is all arbitrary, then what is to stop someone in power from classifying you as non- human, you overgrown skin sack of cellular goo?

"I have respect for human life."

Your words deny it. If I respect the spotted owl, I don't engage in or promote activities that have a chance of killing it. If I respect an artist, I don't act in ways that might destroy his works.

"Populations are approaching zero population growth in most developed nations, and are on decline in a few."

Not according to the UN, which claims that 57 countries have a fertility rate below that of the replacement level here.
That would be a negative population growth, not zero. And it scares the hell out of people who realize the full implications. Feel free to read the links.

"where they can drive down the payscales"

Oh, I am sorry. I keep forgetting that money and land ownership are more important that human lives. I'll try to keep that in mind.

"I'm sorry that you're one of those pathetic souls who cannot see sexuality for what it is--one of God's greatest gifts to man."

Actually, I see sexuality in such a positive light that I can't bring myself to treat it as a recreational activity. Especially to the point of killing any children who inconveniently pop up afterwards. I have two sons, with another son or daughter on the way. I didn't get them by kissing. In fact, I dare say I have a much greater appreciation for it than you. In my eyes, it is part of being the image of God. It is a unity so real that 9 months later you might be giving it a name. It is an opportunity to join in creating a new immortal soul. Read some of Pope John Paul II's theology of the body, to hear from someone else who has a really high opinion of sex.

"it should definitely be enjoyed when the opportunity and the mood presents itself"

Despite the fact that casual sex can kill or permanently infect you with something nasty. Despite the fact that you may be put into the position of cooperating in the murder of your own child. I'll say it again. Pathetic.

"You are selfish in wanting to push yopur own personal moral and religious views on a majority who clearly disagree with you."

If it is selfish to want to stop the gruesome murder of children, then, yes, I am selfish. Selfish as all get out. I selfishly reject your supposed right to tear a baby apart for convenience. And, frankly, it matters little what the ratio of pro- life vs. pro- abortion is. It was still wrong to kill a black man in the pre- Civil War South. It was still wrong to kill a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is still wrong to kill a baby in Nazi America.

"prove to me it's human."

Well, I would first argue that we should err on the side of prudence, and not kill something that even MAY be a human. But I digress.

"define humanity"

A member of the human race.

"Then tell me at what point, exactly, that bunch of cells becomes a human life"

Fertilization.

"prove why that is"

An observable biological fact. An oyster begets oysters. A wolf begets wolves. A human begets...(brace yourself)...a human.

"Hard science is often used to bak-up such positions, but hard cvience just as easily backs up the other positions, too--since it's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact."

Well, go ahead and try. Demonstrate that the basic definition of life is arbitrary by removing some aspect of it from yourself.

Creedo

Highly doubtful, since Security Council resolutions can be vetoed by any of its 5 permanent members, which includes the US. So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. :)

Well, your honest, but wrong.

"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"

You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:

"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didachecirca 100AD

"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas circa 74AD

"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter circa 130AD

...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.

The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion) you find a different story.

"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins."
"[it] can have no definite scientific answer"

Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.

"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"

I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline, talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).

"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"

Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."

"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"

Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many /. readers.

"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"

Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.

Creedo

Consider the following facts about the USs role in the UN:

The USs share for the UNs budget is 298Million
The US owes 1.6Billion
The USs share is 25%, compared to the runner up (Japan) with 17.98%
The UN bought over 500Million in goods and services from US companies
The UN contributes 3.6Billion to the economy of NY alone
That money has generated 30,600 jobs, yielding $1.2 billion in annual earnings (for NY).

By the way, Boutros is a variant of the name which is spelled Peter by us English speakers [1]. Gahli might be translated as [2]``Pumpkin-eater''. You can find other information about him by following these links. One can hope that information is more accurate than this.

[1] I believe that this is true.
[2] Alternatively, it might be translated as something else. But this is funny.

Critical analysis of American government does not mean:

American people are bad.
Other governments are good.

I agree. In fact I enjoy critical analysis of anything that is worth the time. Given the place America has in the world, this is a worthwhile endevour.

So, after U.S. pressure to accept the Balfour Declaration it was passed with 33 of 56 (member nations) votes, 59%

OK, that is certainly one view of the situation, but I don't think it is the only one. Granted America wanted the resolution to pass, so pressure in the form of "hey, vote for this or there could be consequences" is not uncommon for any nation, let alone the US.

Let's see, U.N. resolution 42/159 states:
[SNIP]

What about resolutions 44/29, 46/51, etc. all the way up to 55/158 ? It seems that the U.S. and Israel did vote for them. Why that particular paragraph was eliminated is a matter of speculation. I cannot find any evidence to support your claim that it was the reason they did not vote for it. Even so, I can see why the U.S. would vote against it. The "alien domination" of the Native Americans would cause some concern for quite a few people if it were adopted. Does that make it right, of course not. Should we forget about it, no. Should we punish all Americans or make them go back to Europe because of what their anscestors did, absolutely not. I don't know if that would be the right thing to do with the Israel/Palestine issue either. Fact is, the Jews and the Palestinians have a very long history in that region which goes back well before 1948 or even Jesus Christ/Mohammed. It is much more of a religious issue than a political one. Especially considering that politics have only been a major factor in the last 50 years.

U.N. resolution A/56/L.1 states:

"The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Strongly condemns the heinous acts of terrorism, which have caused enormous loss of human life, destruction and damage in the cities of New York, host city of the United Nations, and Washington, D.C., and in Pennsylvania;
2. Expresses its condolences and solidarity with the people and Government of the United States of America in these sad and tragic circumstances;
3. Urgently calls for international cooperation to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of the outrages of 11 September 2001;
4. Also urgently calls for international cooperation to prevent and eradicate acts of terrorism, and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of such acts will be held accountable."

So the UN seems to be backing the U.S. led coalition to forcibly remove terrorist organizations. How does that co-exist with the "colonial and racist regimes " clause of the 42/159 resolution?

Critical analysis of American government does not mean:

American people are bad.
Other governments are good.

I agree. In fact I enjoy critical analysis of anything that is worth the time. Given the place America has in the world, this is a worthwhile endevour.

So, after U.S. pressure to accept the Balfour Declaration it was passed with 33 of 56 (member nations) votes, 59%

OK, that is certainly one view of the situation, but I don't think it is the only one. Granted America wanted the resolution to pass, so pressure in the form of "hey, vote for this or there could be consequences" is not uncommon for any nation, let alone the US.

Let's see, U.N. resolution 42/159 states:
[SNIP]

What about resolutions 44/29, 46/51, etc. all the way up to 55/158 ? It seems that the U.S. and Israel did vote for them. Why that particular paragraph was eliminated is a matter of speculation. I cannot find any evidence to support your claim that it was the reason they did not vote for it. Even so, I can see why the U.S. would vote against it. The "alien domination" of the Native Americans would cause some concern for quite a few people if it were adopted. Does that make it right, of course not. Should we forget about it, no. Should we punish all Americans or make them go back to Europe because of what their anscestors did, absolutely not. I don't know if that would be the right thing to do with the Israel/Palestine issue either. Fact is, the Jews and the Palestinians have a very long history in that region which goes back well before 1948 or even Jesus Christ/Mohammed. It is much more of a religious issue than a political one. Especially considering that politics have only been a major factor in the last 50 years.

U.N. resolution A/56/L.1 states:

"The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Strongly condemns the heinous acts of terrorism, which have caused enormous loss of human life, destruction and damage in the cities of New York, host city of the United Nations, and Washington, D.C., and in Pennsylvania;
2. Expresses its condolences and solidarity with the people and Government of the United States of America in these sad and tragic circumstances;
3. Urgently calls for international cooperation to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of the outrages of 11 September 2001;
4. Also urgently calls for international cooperation to prevent and eradicate acts of terrorism, and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of such acts will be held accountable."

So the UN seems to be backing the U.S. led coalition to forcibly remove terrorist organizations. How does that co-exist with the "colonial and racist regimes " clause of the 42/159 resolution?

No mention of anyone but the Arabs in the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement.

I challenge you to find a country where this is not the case.

I didn't make that claim. I refer you to my theory on the modus operandi of governments

I assert that if you have several bullies doing their thing in the schoolyard that if you are going to make a difference it makes sense to start with the biggest and meanest.

Critical analysis of American government does not mean:

American people are bad.
Other governments are good.

Another reason not to buy Intel chips.

Regarding Balfour Declaration (direct from Israel's own Jerusalem Post):

President Truman would later say that the US did not pressure any country to vote for partition. That statement, however, would seem to be based on an interpretation of pressure as gunboats or White House stationery. Two US Supreme Court justices, Frank Murphy and Felix Frankfurter, contacted the Philippine ambassador in Washington and sent telegrams to Philippine president Carlos Rojas warning that a negative vote would alienate millions of Americans. Ten senators also cabled Rojas. Presidential aide David Niles, Truman's channel to the Jewish community, contacted influential American-Greek businessmen in an attempt to persuade Athens to vote for partition. Unlike with the Philippines and Liberia, this effort was not successful.

[SNIP]

The voting was conducted by the senior American on the UN Secretariat, Andrew Cordier. When it was done he handed the tally to Aranha who studied it for a moment before announcing that the resolution had been carried by a vote of 33 for, 13 against and 10 abstentions. "I close the meeting."

So, after U.S. pressure to accept the Balfour Declaration it was passed with 33 of 56 (member nations) votes, 59%.

Let's see, U.N. resolution 42/159 states:

Reaffirming also the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

This is apparently the reason that it was voted for by everyone except the USA and Israel.

No mention of anyone but the Arabs in the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement.

I challenge you to find a country where this is not the case.

I didn't make that claim. I refer you to my theory on the modus operandi of governments

I assert that if you have several bullies doing their thing in the schoolyard that if you are going to make a difference it makes sense to start with the biggest and meanest.

Critical analysis of American government does not mean:

American people are bad.
Other governments are good.

Another reason not to buy Intel chips.

Regarding Balfour Declaration (direct from Israel's own Jerusalem Post):

President Truman would later say that the US did not pressure any country to vote for partition. That statement, however, would seem to be based on an interpretation of pressure as gunboats or White House stationery. Two US Supreme Court justices, Frank Murphy and Felix Frankfurter, contacted the Philippine ambassador in Washington and sent telegrams to Philippine president Carlos Rojas warning that a negative vote would alienate millions of Americans. Ten senators also cabled Rojas. Presidential aide David Niles, Truman's channel to the Jewish community, contacted influential American-Greek businessmen in an attempt to persuade Athens to vote for partition. Unlike with the Philippines and Liberia, this effort was not successful.

[SNIP]

The voting was conducted by the senior American on the UN Secretariat, Andrew Cordier. When it was done he handed the tally to Aranha who studied it for a moment before announcing that the resolution had been carried by a vote of 33 for, 13 against and 10 abstentions. "I close the meeting."

So, after U.S. pressure to accept the Balfour Declaration it was passed with 33 of 56 (member nations) votes, 59%.

Let's see, U.N. resolution 42/159 states:

Reaffirming also the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

This is apparently the reason that it was voted for by everyone except the USA and Israel.

The dirty fuckhead, Sodom Strapon Hussein has spoken his utter words of fitlth.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein says he's ready to go to war using one of his most effective weapons: oil. We blew the rest of his shit up

Saddam has indicated that he's ready to turn off the taps to use crude as a weapon to punish countries supporting Israel, and has told other Arab nations to follow his lead in an escalating war of words. If he shuts off the oil, more people will starve, because the oil is being traded for food with the OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM. http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/basfact.html

"It's a disgrace on all Arabs and believers everywhere in the world if they don't help their Palestinian brothers in their battle," Saddam told his ruling Ba'ath Party in a speech Sunday night before the directive to Arab nations. "If Arabs want to put an end to Zionism, they are able to do so in 24 hours." Snore, like they could do shit to Israel, they tried 4 times, the Arab scum, do it again, towels, do it.

Iraq pumps out 200,000 barrels of oil a day and is the fifth-largest producer of oil for the United States despite sanctions that allow Iraq to sell only enough oil to pay for humanitarian and medical relief for its citizens.

"Saddam Hussein has made similar threats in the past and has not followed through. It's a little bit like the little boy who cried wolf," said Erik Gustafson, an Iraqi policy expert. Money grubbing pussy

"This is a desperate attempt on his part to stay in power. Ultimately, it's not going to work and within 12 months, Saddam Hussein is going to be out, and I think he's going to be in his equivalent of paradise, he['s] not going to be on this Earth," forecast Forbes magazine publisher Steve Forbes. What a fag. The Palestinians look real good with this fuckhead supporting their shit cause.
But this time around, oil industry experts say Saddam's going to have a harder time rallying the oil-producing troops.

"Most oil-producing nations within OPEC will not use oil as a weapon. It will be a weapon of last resort as far as they're concerned," said Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading.

"The real question is: Does an embargo go along with an output reduction by OPEC? But let's remember something about Saudi Arabia. They export around 1.7 million-1.8 million barrels of oil a day to the U.S. About a third of that goes to a half-owned refining system. They're half owner so are they going to embargo their own refining system?" asked John Kingston, Platts' global director of oil.

Just the threat of further unrest in the area destabilizes crude markets. Saddam's words could have an impact on prices just by talking loudly and holding a big oil reserve.

"The significant part of all this, however, is that it has really come to the point that Saddam can make a statement like this and that it doesn't fall on deaf ears," said Samer Shehata, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Georgetown University.

It just doesn't make sense that an uneducated 18 year old has more rights in society than a very well educated 17 year old.

That very argument was used by pinochet (remember the CIA puppet in Chile?) to justify his fascist regime.

> Further, there are many countries that don't even belong to the U.N. [...]

According to the Swiss government (see this link) the UN used to have two non-members, Switzerland and the Holy See, until recently. As the Swiss finally agreed to join the UN on March 3 this year, this leaves the Vatican as the only non-member worldwide.

Call me an optimist if you want, but I don't expect to receive too many of those "bigger [d*ck | t*ts] / herbal viagra / h*rny coeds" spams from the Pope if worldwide legislation against spam were ever put into effect.

Greetings from Switzerland,
Raymond

Cut to the chase: human population is rapidly rising. Everything else is just a byproduct. Seriously, just look at population statistics for the root cause.

I think you are correct that, in the long run, human population levels and the rate of technological advancement are the most important things to look at. This is why I am cautiously optimistic about the situation. Technological advancement should drastically improve energy efficiency over the next century, but that improvement could conceivably be defeated by dramatically rising populations.

The good news on the population front is that the UN can now give population estimates under some reasonable assumptions that show human populations as leveling off substantially. (See http://esa.un.org/unpp/ for more information.) Not every fertility scenario leads to a levelling off, and some might argue that 7 billion to 10 billion is still too many people for the planet, but I now believe that the second derivative of population growth over time is negative, and the first is declining as well.

This should not induce a lot of self-congratulation or allow us to favor the continuation of truly wasteful policies, but it should tell us that improvements in living standards can and most likely will lead to decreases in family size and a decline in the population growth rate.

I just searched through and didn't find one mention
of temps, so I thought I would throw them into the
mix. Anyone here who has temped or hell, in today's
sh!tstorm of an economy might still be temping, knows the
salvation of the web. Hell even aim, though it is a bloodsucking
leach that leaves you cowering in the corner still keeps you fingering
the light, knowing that you aren't completely a wasteproduct of the economy.

In any event, for temps, and no it isn't a right,
but on the same level is the right to work a "right?"
um, well yeah according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 23,

Everyone has the right to work, to
free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions
of work and to protection against unemployment.


Sidesteping the rant that is evolving on
weather or not temp is beneath the acceptable level of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you have to
understand that as a temp, most places, there is a
smidgeon of work to do, that a person of average
intelligence, and I see a lot of temps that are
college grads, but in the "Liberal Arts," the work
can be done in two hours.

What happens next?
Do you report to the boss, tell her you are done,
what else can I do? Well, that is a wildcard, in
some cases temps are keeping the seat warm for
someone to come in to take the job, and if they don't
have a policy about getting their workers from temp
agencies (some places do) then you might show that you
are proactive and can get the job done. However, in
many of the other places, there really isn't that much
work to be done, especially for the type of work that
they would give a temp. Once you finish that work, you
are out. Rent is due, bills have to be paid, and yo'
baby momma is kicking up drama. Well I don't know about
the last part, but without the web to bide time, to at
least offer the chance to put on a strained countenance
when the boss walks by, so maybe she thinks, "hunh he is
really pondering that spreadsheet," when in reality you
are thinking "how in the fck does jon katz get paid to make observations?"

No surfing the web may not be a "Right,"
but i would argue it helps keep people who otherwise would be,
well who knows, maybe out of work, on the dole, welfare,
whatever, in the office, working, just not all the time.

Well, it'd almost be nice if this was a flame, but it's probably a typical example of how most people have no idea what's going on in this region.

So, am I going to correct that massive information deficit with just one post?
Ha!
You gotta be kidding!

Ok, random facts:
Why are the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories' known as the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories'?
Because the UN has been saying since 1967 that Israel should withdraw from them.
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/s67r242e.p df

Why do many Palestinines dislike the US?
You could just read this:
http://www.merip.org/media_outreach/CT-Harm-done-g lobe.html
Basically, the US is funding Israels occupation:
- Israel gets about a third of US foreign aid
even though
- Israel's GNP is higher than Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza combined.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
(actually, most of the US's aid goes to military uses
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jul98/23_13_097.html )

What is one of the reasons Palestinians dislike Ariel Sharon?
He was Minister of Defence during a 1982 Palestinian massacre... gah, just look here:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine/ news2001/amnesty100301.html

About 3 times more Palestinians have died in this conflict than Israelis. About a quarter of them, children.
The Palestinians have vastly less land available to them, they are poorer - many are living in refugee camps, after all.

And blah, here's more.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine/ eduardoCohen.html

And "Will somebody please think of the Children!?"
http://playgroundsforpalestine.org/
Ok, so that's not actually funny...
:(

I could say that it's kinda atrocious how one group of people are treating another, considering they know how it is to be treated that way, and worse.
But I'd be living in Lah-lah land. People are not that nice, fair, or decent.

And yay, there's probably some people who will have gotten to this bit, and already decided I'm "a bad guy" so they can ignore me.

But it's not that simple.
It's a war, with all the nasties of a civil war.
It's in the best interests of Fundamentalists on both sides to continue the conflict, as it works helluva good in the popularity ratings.

Each side is gonna say the other side is THE BAD GUYS, because that's how wars work.
If you don't believe it, people don't want to fight them.

Currently, the Palestinians are getting the worse end of the stick, but Israelis are not "THE BAD GUYS" either.
It's just people - working, eating, caring for their children, getting on with life - on both sides, but until you realise that, there won't be peace.

A completely non-revolutionary idea, but still true.

Look for yourself.

Say I were to use it to differentiate prices: people buying books who are coming from one state pay price $X, people coming from another state pay price $Y. Not because of different shipping costs (which may be equal), but because market research has told me that people from state X are willing to pay me more money for the the product.

Or it can be used to block access to material (iCraveTV) - only people from state X are allowed to see this.

Or it can be used in a good way. Think caching servers. If there is a cache server for a major website in every high usage area so that server response times are faster and overall network traffic is lower. However, a lot of sites do this already (fist page: choose your location server).

What is important is that geolocation is used in a good way, improving the lives of citizens, and not restricting what they can and cannot see/hear/know about when that information may be important to them.

So it can behave like many tools. With this hammer, I can build you a house (good) or hit you on the head (bad). With this international treaty, we can (re)build nations in peace, or we can use it to restrict and isolate a nation that does not see things from the true (read: MY) point of view.

So does anyone have any ideas about a good international treaty that can be used to help citizens of all countries? Maybe an extension to the UN Charter of Human Rights.

A good place to start is with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights[or search Gnutella]. Plenty of nice articles there, but these two seem most relevant to the current topic:

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Clearly, the only reasonable conclusion is [insert your conclusion here] and anyone who says otherwise is a pirate and scallywag!

That's a bad load of anti-Indian slander from 'Anonymous Coward'. Just about the only thing right in his post was that India should focus on improving life for her downtrodden.

Here's why the post's wrong: First: India is a constitutionally secular country, not a Hindu one. (I myself am an Indian Christian, a recent convert from Hinduism). The Caste system is illegal, and practising it prosecuted under Indian law. The implementation of these laws, however, is not thorough -- inefficiency and corruption plague the Indian administration and justice systems. (Though recently, things have been improving faster)

Secondy, as far as coveting Kashmir goes, the state of Jammu and Kashmir legally merged with India sometime in 1948. A UN resolution passed then, required Pakistan to withdraw it's forces, and let Kashmir come under complete *Indian* control. India was then to host a plebiscite over the entire state. However Pakistan never withdrew... and the rest is history. You can verify this here (see page 11).

Lastly, getting down to the main topic -- I think using a Carnivore-like system to promiscuously trawl for information without a court order is wrong. An analogy would be a policeman habitually entering into people's homes to check for thieves. And I also think that the spook (it must be one of ours) who released this to our media was simply indulging in wishful thinking (fundamental rights are -- we don't have that many supercomputers.

I am missing a human right in the declaration of the UN:

The inviolableness of the body.

The latest UN statistics show China's per-capita income at $798 USD.

Does that sort of income enable the purchase of a computer, or the recurring costs of a phone line and ISP?

If it does, then what are the Internet applications driving this incredible influx of mandarin/cantonese users? Without the huge economic/retail motive that drove American adoption, it's hard to see the huge growth in users and services. And, obviously, there is absolutely no way this will happen by 2007, as it says in the article.

According to the UN, 68% of the population lives in rural areas.

The U.N. is seeking Trained IT people right now.

It is not necessary to go abroad to make something useful for the world.

As you live in a democracy, you can encourage the people you voted for to change some politics that the USA have and that are the source of a lot of pain in the poor countries.

The first things that come to my mind are the number of international treaties that the USA have not signed :

1. the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

2. the Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC). All countries except for the United States and Somalia have ratified it.

3. the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

4. the ban on antipersonnel landmines (the Ottawa Treaty)

5. the Kyoto Protocol

6. the Law of the Sea Treaty

All those treaties, if signed and applied, can make the world a better place for poor citizens of poor countries.

There are also a number of treaties thatthe US has stripped to signe them.

NOTE : Don't get me wrong, I am not your basic anti-US socialist european. In the numerous talks I had with people after the 11th september, I was always blaming those who said "It's their fault ! Good for them". I was (am) also defending the action against the taliban (except for the use of some nasty bombs).
But, being a supporter of the US must not hide that it's a BIG SHAME to have not signed, ratified and applied those treaties at least !

PS : sorry if some info is outdated, do not hesitate to notify me.

It is not necessary to go abroad to make something useful for the world.

As you live in a democracy, you can encourage the people you voted for to change some politics that the USA have and that are the source of a lot of pain in the poor countries.

The first things that come to my mind are the number of international treaties that the USA have not signed :

1. the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

2. the Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC). All countries except for the United States and Somalia have ratified it.

3. the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

4. the ban on antipersonnel landmines (the Ottawa Treaty)

5. the Kyoto Protocol

6. the Law of the Sea Treaty

All those treaties, if signed and applied, can make the world a better place for poor citizens of poor countries.

There are also a number of treaties thatthe US has stripped to signe them.

NOTE : Don't get me wrong, I am not your basic anti-US socialist european. In the numerous talks I had with people after the 11th september, I was always blaming those who said "It's their fault ! Good for them". I was (am) also defending the action against the taliban (except for the use of some nasty bombs).
But, being a supporter of the US must not hide that it's a BIG SHAME to have not signed, ratified and applied those treaties at least !

PS : sorry if some info is outdated, do not hesitate to notify me.

If you support/obey the United Nations Security Council Resolution then you don't get shutdown/cutoff. Otherwise you do get shutdown/cutoff.

The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 appears to authorize this action.

rm3friskerFTN replies: Congress did declare war (grin)... Authorization for Use of Military Force

danheskett wrote: Any action that the US Government takes - to any other nation or any civilian or any citizen must be preceeded and anteceded with due process.

rm3friskerFTN replies: UN Security Council Resolution 1373 authorized this and other measures.

danheskett wrote: Due process is deserved by all.

rm3friskerFTN replies: Funny ... Joe Terrorist is found with a suitcase nuke in his apartment. Ooops ... he can't be sent to jail because it was discovered by the authorities without a search warrant. Joe Terrorist must be set free. IANAL, but I understand that in legal circles there is a Latin expression for this meaning "in war the law is silent regarding liberties"

Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:

all States shall: ... suppress the financing of terrorist acts;

all States shall: Prohibit ... making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;

Decides also that all States shall: Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

other paragraphs here

Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:

all States shall: ... suppress the financing of terrorist acts;

all States shall: Prohibit ... making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;

Decides also that all States shall: Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

other paragraphs here

You're using two different meanings of the word harboring. The terrorists lived in the US for four years, without US knowledge.

Usama Bin Laden lives or lived in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, with the understanding and support of the Taliban, and rejected the (powerless) United Nations attempt to extradite him from Afghanistan under United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999) for the murder of hundreds of individuals in embassy bombings.

It's one thing to have a murderer hiding without your knowledge in your basement. It's quite another thing to hide the murderer in your basement with intent.

First off, here's the UN declaration of Human Rights, for anybody that's interested.

That said, here is the difference: an Amish or Orthodox Jewish Woman in the US or Canada or Sweden (or Israel or any democratic free country) can choose wether or not to observe their religion.

OK, but what about China or Saudi Arabia, or rural India, or Indonesia, or on and on and fucking on. The above document is bullshit. For instance:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Not if you live in a monarchy, like about 1/8 of the world's population! Even Denmark has a king (uh...I think...), which renders that statement retarded.

However, any woman who does not want to should be able to choose not to.

Just like I should be able to choose whether to allow my balls to swing freely from the zipper of my jeans. Unfortunately (fortunately for everyone else), that would violate (this part is important) the local standards for decency. Exchange "balls" for "anything", "jeans" for "burqa", and "I" for "women of most mid-east countries", and you'll see what I'm saying.

We aren't forcing anything but the freedom to choose on opposed people.

I'll assume you mean "oppressed" here. My point is that you can't even force choice on anyone. Some peoples (intentional plural) have decided that they would rather go to heaven than wear shorts, or even allow their wives to wear shorts. That is their business. For the most part, even Muslim women feel the same way. Islam was not born on the backs of an army, but born in the words of someone considered to be a prophet from God.

Bush: Surrender bin Laden to us -- not the UN, not the Hague, not Nuremberg -- to the U.S.: judge, jury and executioner. There will be no negotiations. We're going to start bombing if you do not comply.

Taliban: Show us evidence and we'll try him ourselves.

Bush: No!

Taliban: Okay, show us evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.

Bush: No!

Taliban: Fine, show us just some of the evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.

Bush: No!

Taliban: We'll hand him over to a third party, and at some future time please show us some of the evidence.

Bush: No! ... OMFG, we tried every diplomatic means at our disposal, but they didn't cave in to our non-negotiable demands. Time to bomb.

We are now attacking those who protected the guy who sent the planes into the buildings.

No, not really. We're blowing up vacant training camps that we paid for, air fields, UN and Red Cross buildings (oops), and residential areas (sorry). And there's that "little" humanitarian crisis of 7 million starving civilians and refugees.

Have we nabbed bin Laden or crushed the Taliban? No. We haven't found him let alone captured him.

"Come on out or we'll burn the place down."

Nice metaphor, but it's not complete. You forgot that the saloon belongs to an innocent man; his wife, two children, and twenty patrons are also inside being held hostage by three gunmen that robbed a bank. Are you willing to have the sheriff murder 24 innocent civilians to execute 3 thieves?

That's precisely why we have laws that everyone must obey, and provisions for apprehending law breakers that do not include killing anyone that had the misfortune to be standing near them. I don't care how much you want revenge, you don't get to murder to achieve it.

And as for "vigalantism" keep in mind that the UN and NATO both gave us the green light before the first fuse was lit.

Reading through the latest UN Security Council Resolutions (1368 and 1373), I see no endorsement of military action. They mention steps to curb the financial activities of terrorist organizations and a desire for multilateral information-sharing agreements. They both conclude with the standard, "Decides to remain seized of this matter," meaning the Security Council must be petitioned for any new action to be taken.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy that unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by many countries working together, using many different means - including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means."

Note the distinct lack of "military" as one of the options. Once again the U.S. is taking unilateral action against international law and treaties the U.S. has signed. Nothing new here.

Bush: Surrender bin Laden to us -- not the UN, not the Hague, not Nuremberg -- to the U.S.: judge, jury and executioner. There will be no negotiations. We're going to start bombing if you do not comply.

Taliban: Show us evidence and we'll try him ourselves.

Bush: No!

Taliban: Okay, show us evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.

Bush: No!

Taliban: Fine, show us just some of the evidence and we'll hand him over to a third party.

Bush: No!

Taliban: We'll hand him over to a third party, and at some future time please show us some of the evidence.

Bush: No! ... OMFG, we tried every diplomatic means at our disposal, but they didn't cave in to our non-negotiable demands. Time to bomb.

We are now attacking those who protected the guy who sent the planes into the buildings.

No, not really. We're blowing up vacant training camps that we paid for, air fields, UN and Red Cross buildings (oops), and residential areas (sorry). And there's that "little" humanitarian crisis of 7 million starving civilians and refugees.

Have we nabbed bin Laden or crushed the Taliban? No. We haven't found him let alone captured him.

"Come on out or we'll burn the place down."

Nice metaphor, but it's not complete. You forgot that the saloon belongs to an innocent man; his wife, two children, and twenty patrons are also inside being held hostage by three gunmen that robbed a bank. Are you willing to have the sheriff murder 24 innocent civilians to execute 3 thieves?

That's precisely why we have laws that everyone must obey, and provisions for apprehending law breakers that do not include killing anyone that had the misfortune to be standing near them. I don't care how much you want revenge, you don't get to murder to achieve it.

And as for "vigalantism" keep in mind that the UN and NATO both gave us the green light before the first fuse was lit.

Reading through the latest UN Security Council Resolutions (1368 and 1373), I see no endorsement of military action. They mention steps to curb the financial activities of terrorist organizations and a desire for multilateral information-sharing agreements. They both conclude with the standard, "Decides to remain seized of this matter," meaning the Security Council must be petitioned for any new action to be taken.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy that unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by many countries working together, using many different means - including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means."

Note the distinct lack of "military" as one of the options. Once again the U.S. is taking unilateral action against international law and treaties the U.S. has signed. Nothing new here.

I strongly disagree. Deurabnization would be a great thing.

The software company I work for needs to be located in the expensive heart of the biggest city in Canada like we all need a hole in our head. But because of the "perceived need", all of the employees either have to pay a HUGE amount of money for a SMALL place to live, or they have to spend 1-3 hours a day commuting.

Do you have any idea what 1-3 hours of commuting creates in terms of pollution? Do you have any idea of what a huge drain on the economy all these grossly inefficient highly expensive cities and concrete towers cost? Don't attribute to "economic necessity" that which can be easily explained by social dellusion.

Now I appreciate your concern about having all of North America covered by one big suburb. So where's the right middle ground?

Currently the US and Canada are 75% urban, 25% rural. (see here) If all the small towns in the country were tripled in size (which means taking people from the city cores AND the suburbs, which are counted as part of the urban megopolis'), what would it look like? I think that the country would not look like one massive suburbia. My little tiny home town would simply be a little bigger, still surrounded by massive amounts of nature. (Currently 1000 people in a couple square miles in the middle of 400 square miles of countryside).

The suburbs are PART of urban areas. When people talk about deurbanization, they are talking about taking the people in those 100 square miles of suburbia and spreading them out.

I'm 100% behind deurbanization.

How is this factored in to legislative decisions which will undoubtedly affect this international culture? I'm speaking specifically about matters of encryption, privacy (currently with Echelon and Carnivore the US is in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, at least Article 12), censorship, online trade, free speech, and the recent Voyeur Dorm case in Florida.

The difference here is that when the govt wants to read an email and sees that the official backdoors aren't working this will be a reasonable indication that the contents of the email are illegal.

I fail to see how this holds - The European Parliament issued a report (see this Irish Times article for a discussion) in response to Echelon encouraging citizens to use Encryption. Remember, we are not all US citizens. Some of us in the "western world" still adhere to Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which I reproduce here:

Article 12.

• 
  

  No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

  
  

So if I, as a law-abiding European citizen, use Encryption as a means of supporting my human rights according to the United Nations, and in direct response to a recommendation by my extended government (in the EU), the US government can assume I am a criminal?

It has been said here before, and I'll say it again. Many US citizens need to take their heads out of the sand and realise that there is a whole other (civilised!) world out there that doesn't "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."

What needs emphasizing is that the standards we use to communicate must be in the public domain. If not, if an industry standard controlled by a company becomes widespread, the company can put in such clauses in effectively prohibit certain unwanted kinds of speech, typically we will see first speech that critizes the company.

Now, mark that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically grants the right to express yourself in any medium. If, say one company owns an industry standard that is the only way to communicate by speech, this human right does no longer exist.

That is why Ogg is so important. It will make a standard for the public domain, and this standard is the only thing that saves free speech in the multimedia age. No Ogg, no free speech.

Similarily, we must make sure that similar bodies, working on other public domain standards, such as the W3C are successful. Without them, we're screwed.

An for those saying that "just don't use FP", well, you see, we all know M$ wants to control these commodity protocols, and M$ hardly cares about a bunch of geeks anyway, so us boycotting M$ doesn't help. Joe Sixpack must understand the problem, cause if he doesn't, they'll win, and turn the web into their network, and make sure FP is the only authoring tool you can use. It'll be the end of free speech too...

Ensuring that the standards are in the public domain is even more important than that software is Free (as in speech).

Part right, part wrong. The 18th (next week) is Int'l peace day. Check out UN Days of the Year for Sept 2001. Minor detail, I know.

It's International Peace Day and the anniversary of the start of the 1978 Camp David Peace Accord talks...

It's ironic and sad...

According to the Boston Metro, today is International Peace Day.

-Rene

Racist action, including talk, should not be tolerated. Racist people like you should be rooted out and punished.

And here are the articles from NPR and the United Nations Security Council Report (PDF)
These were also months ago....
Evidently it wasn't interesting then as my submission got rejected.... the heck with Karma...