Slashdot Mirror

File sharing is what you do with something you own.

No. File sharing is when you make files publicly available. Of course, you need to have permission to read in order to do that. Ownership however is not required.

Piracy is sharing files that you do not own.

No. Piracy is when you force the crew of a ship to hand over the control of a ship. For doing so, the pirate must possess the tools of coercion, arms. According to the United Nation, the piracy is a very serious, violent crime. I don't see any reference to file sharing in the text, do you? In any case, making the connection between the two is an act of exaggeration, association with one of the most violent behaviour, just like calling people who disagree with you, nazis or mass murderers.

Movies are about fiction (virtually always).

That may be true. However the mentioned fictional film is about the actual meaning of the word, piracy, not the fictional content that you just made up above.

Some educator uploading material they do not own is piracy. It may also be civil disobedience.

Again, no. I'm not aware from the story that the said teacher invaded private ships on the seas and forced the crew to hand over the load.

Some 12 year old downloading Katy Perry is piracy. It probably is not civil disobedience.

No, not even by your own definition. As long as the 12 year old takes the publicly available copy and only downloads it, there's no file sharing involved. It is only the case if she or he starts to make her own copy publicly available, being a leach or a seed in a torrent network, or the analogue in some other way. If someone leaves a Kate Perry CD on a bench in a box labelled free to take, and bring the CD for listening, would you still accuse her with hijacking ships, threaten ship crews with murder, and so on?

If the law says that file sharing you do not own is illegal, that is one thing. Using a label "pirate" for those who do so is an other, an act of magnifying of the act what they did. File sharing is not theft, not pirating. It is what it is: sharing files, sharing information. It may be debatable that the information sharing is a not a basic right, yet, it is not by default. One must sign non-disclosure agreements if one is expected to keep some information secret. This always happens before revealing the information. Consumers of digital media aren't restricted by two-side non-disclosure agreements before purchase. If the law is not consistent it can't be applied, and enforcement of laws which aren't consistent with the nature of acts it supposed to regulate can't be, by nature consistent either. Non-consistent law enforcement is the tell tale sign of an oppressive political system. In this case, the source of oppression is the political lobby of different publisher cartels. Civil disobedience is the right of the citizens in such a case, not an option.

You can apply the same idea here as for homosexual acts. For hundreds of years homosexual acts were illegal and inconsistent of the nature of sexual life. The justification was that homosexuality is a crime against nature. Of course, Nature as such, isn't a person, and is and was mostly linked to the idea of God, again, a non-person. But by citing God/Nature in the justification it exceeded the entire framework of the issue, and brought it in to a stage where it doesn't belong. Ditto with piracy and file sharing. This is a question about the way we handle information, and has nothing to do with piracy.

(and shows you why the United Nations no longer works towards its founding purpose)

To understand how far the UN has gone from its founding purpose, just reread the first few sections of its charter. The teal deer version is that states are to stay at peace with each other and are not allowed to interfere in each others' internal politics or to use an internal matter as justification for war. This means that all Communist acts of political incitement and spreading revolution were in violation of the UN charter, and the US-led counterreactions were also illegal. The admission of the Arab League was the unwise addition of a bloc of 22 states all in standing violation of the UN charter by their refusal to recognize Israel's existence, let alone its territorial integrity as the sole legal owner of the West Bank since the 1994 treaty. Obama's war on Libya was as much an unwarranted war of aggression in violation of the UN charter as was Bush's war on Iraq, and so is his proxy war against Syria, and so is the Saudi and Iranian support for proxy wars around the world that nobody is going to be held responsible for anytime soon. The UN itself appoints officials to not be neutral arbiters but to codify the war propaganda of aggressor states in official UN findings that can then be claimed to be international law, leading to such incidents as the UN's "highly respected" and "authoritative" human rights official Richard Falk praising the Boston Marathon bombing as a righteous act of resistance against oppression.

The Republicans had the right idea about the UN: cut its funding until it starts behaving by its own rules. It would help if the US was an advocate for these rules rather than another willful breaker of them.

You don't have a Constitutional right to own a car.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — Ninth Amendment

To me, existing government regulations surrounding vehicle use and ownership don't offer a compelling argument for legitimizing restrictions of the Second Amendment — rather, it's an example of overreach that treads upon the human rights to travel and property, which can be particularly onerous in a nation where automobile-centric urban planning/suburban sprawl paired with deficient mass transit is so prevalent.

You don't have a Constitutional right to own a car.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — Ninth Amendment

To me, existing government regulations surrounding vehicle use and ownership don't offer a compelling argument for legitimizing restrictions of the Second Amendment — rather, it's an example of overreach that treads upon the human rights to travel and property, which can be particularly onerous in a nation where automobile-centric urban planning/suburban sprawl paired with deficient mass transit is so prevalent.

No less an authority than the United Nations pins a full 9% of all human-related CO2 production on cows, but it's worse than that:

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Source: Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

I didn't realize the CIA defined international law. They might want to, though! ;-)

Here is the UN's list of member states.

There is no copyright "right" that is any equal to Human and Civil rights - including those of free speech.

What document establishes the existence of "Human and Civil rights - including those of free speech" in more than one country? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, mentions freedom of expression in article 19 but mentions copyright in article 27(2).

Florida's international drivers license requirement is an unenforceable law. Florida can't legally make it a requirement because it violates the Genova Convention on Road Traffic. While the law is unenforceable, it is still on the books and can cause grief for international travelers who may want to get a rental car within the state of Florida.

1st Amendment is there only to ensure that ONE particular government does not hinder what is currently universally recognized as a basic human right.

Just because there is need to ensure that a government will not hinder that right, does not mean that private groups or individuals are free to do so.
If you're not certain about it being so, try swapping in some other human right in there in stead of "right to freedom of opinion and expression".

E.g. A private group going around and hindering "right to education".
Or the "right to own property".
Or "right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law".
Or "right to life, liberty and security of person".

Sorry, but if you haven't been paying attention the "European union" is a Laurette. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/15/un-backed-troops-accused-rape-congo or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping#Reception or just take the UN's word for it here: https://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/fatalities/documents/stats_1.pdf . The UN claims to only whack a under 200 a year.

http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx?d=CLINO
About 5 minutes on google, didn't really check for much else being that i don't really care, but that should give you a starter point at the minimum.

You don't get the danger. Most children in the west aren't vaccinated against Polio (makes no sense here and there's a small risk involved to the child), in Africa very few children are vaccinated at all in large areas. I don't know about South America or China, but I doubt the situation is much better. If even one of those tribal children gets out* with the disease, it will kill thousands and maim tens of thousands of children, maybe hundreds of thousands. This has happened before, and it is an absolute certainty it can happen again. This is what happens to ~30% of infected children take a look.

Those are the stakes. To be extremely frank, I'm ambivalent on whether it would be moral to nuke this disease out of existence. Nuking this disease would easily help more people than it would hurt, even if it does hurt millions.

The conspiracy theories of these tribes, killing and sterilizing anyone perceived as different, are simply what they would do themselves if they could. They probably perceive doing that as part of their religion. They may even be right about that, I don't know. Fortunately those aid workers don't share their religion.

* very sorry to put it that way

We could even parallel something like the Antarctic Treaty which basically ban military activity on the continent.

The Antarctic Treaty Article I

1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons.
2. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.

Article IV of the apparently "less well known" OuterSpace treaty...

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Strangely similar wouldn't you say? A quick read of a history book published after 1970 would probably indicate that the 1967 Outerspace Treaty was based on the 1959 Anarctic Treaty. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html

assuming that just because I didn't list them means they don't exist and I'm therefore wrong.

No, I'll assume you are wrong because now that you have listed them, you are, in fact, wrong:

Here's a few items you have gotten incorrect:

1) BWC is currently listed as an active treaty on the US department of state's website here. What makes you think the US withdrew?

2) I can't find any evidence that the US is exempt from the CWC. The US CWC website indicates no such exemption, and neither does wikipedia, nor the UN website on the treaty. Care to provide some evidence?

3) Withdrawing from a treaty is not the same thing as breaking it. The US gave 6 months notice of the intent to withdraw from the ABM treaty as permitted by the terms of the treaty. Saying that's the same as breaking a treaty is the equivalent to saying not paying your car lease is the same as completing the lease and returning the car.

Treaties that the US has not signed have nothing to do with the discussion, but nice attempt at moving the goalposts.

Seriously, why the hell is this on Slashdot?

Well, I like to think that when a news reports on something like a study and it turns out that there was a reason to doubt that study in the first place, it's that news organization's prerogative to make sure that they follow up on that story. The fact is he's still listed on the board of PXP.

This doesn't even have to do with computers, or anything even remotely nerd-like ...

Fracking is indeed nerd-like for the geologists, environmentalists and anyone concerned with energy or resource dependence. Fracking for shale resources is going to have a key effect on the future of the world. That will affect everything nerd-like. To quote Jim Rogers:

If the 19th century belonged to Britain, and the 20th century to the United States. Then the 21st century will surely belong to China. My advice: Make sure your kids learn Chinese.

And I feel like western nations are clawing at any sort of straw they can find to prevent that. Unfortunately I personally feel this has resulted in putting all our eggs in natural gas and developing those resources at all costs.

Any talk about "Legitimate" speech is on the same level as "Legitimate Rape". All speech is legitimate, though, clearly the UN and most of its members do not.

Don't believe me that the UN classifies political dissent as non-protected? Just look at their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop where it says Article 29: (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Do we really want people controlling the internet who in their own "bill of rights" basically say you don't have these basic, "universal" rights if you disagree with us?

Not according to UN data. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp But anyway, the US is strong in agroexports.

Could you point out where?I am failing to see in the agreements and documentation where is states that we will reduce the world's population. Mostly I see agreements on human rights and protecting children?

the problem with too much military spending is a problem in the US. You waste much more money of your GDP for the military than other Western countries. However, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the taxes do not suffice to pay for all the social benefits. So you either get rid of the social benefits or have to raise taxes.

In the last 30 years, all Western countries have reduced the taxes for rich people. As Warren Buffet pointed out, he is paying 17% taxes, while most people pay 30%. In Germany the situation is similar. Taxes on your salary go from 15% up to 42% for high incomes. However, profits made on the capital market is only taxed with 20%.

One problem with taxes on these kinds of income are, if you raise them too much, people move their money to Switzerland, Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands (there are ways in preventing that, but politicians look deliberately in the other direction).

The other option is to reduce social benefits or be consequent and do not have any. While this sounds like a simple solution, it results in a lot of other problems. A country, or a group of people live together. they are interdependent. If one group raises to much above the others, they tend to disconnect (happened in history several times). As the richer groups tend then to turn their back on the rest (not necessarily to everyone, but to the majority) and stop understanding their situation, they steer up resentments on the other end. When those lower class people, start to have problems sustaining their present level, which often means they have to move to cheaper and less habitable quarters. Such environment creates the general feeling that you cannot achieve anything. You can struggle, but in the end you fail. When living in that environment, the times get harder, people tend to violence. Rich people normally call then for the state to protect them. When that does not help, they build guarded homes and villages. Shutting out the poor. You can visit that situation in South Africa.

In such a situation, it can happen, and it has happened, that the poor start some sort of revolt. The main trigger for the revolt in Egypt and other states in northern Africa, and also in Syria, are the poor condition, and the disconnectedness of the ruling class.

It is absolutely clear that such a situation is even for the ruling class very uncomfortable and undesirable. Therefore, we have to sustain the option for everyone that we care for his or her basic needs. This cuts violence between people in lower classes and towards the middle class. Furthermore, we have to provide the means that people can evolve. They must be empowered. If so they can find their place in live. Not everyone needs to become rich or even strive for it. Happiness or other contexts of wellbeing can be achieved in different way. However, they correlate highly with guaranteed human rights, which include education, medical care, care of elderly, security, housing, a task or work with which you can identify, fair working conditions etc. (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml).

The only working solution to the above problems is social security systems. Especially those who tend to empower people, like the one in Sweden. Not so much like the system in Germany. And definitely not like the US system.

On a side note: If you look at the total debt of the US government (and therefor the citizens) plus the debt of private households it adds up quite well with the amount of money the upper 10% of your country own. In Germany it is quite similar. Recently they released the latest poverty report for Germany. The government cheated a bit in the summary, but the data is telling another story. Their cutting of social benefits did not help. More people have jobs, but they cannot live from the money they get. So they get state money, which still costs the the state money, my tax money.

So to solve your math problem, which is actually a calculus problem,

Most of modern history in the Middle East results from the UN sticking its fingers where they don't belong, randomly stealing a big chunk of land considered sacred to the natives, and giving it to Israel.

Blame the British and the Balfour Declaration. By the time the UN came into existence the theft was well underway; the UN at most ratified it.

Most of the trouble spots in the world today can be traced to the British Empire. It's time for the British and other colonial nations to face up to the disaster they caused the rest of the world and start paying reparations.

That happening on the XXI century, having such a clear violation of human rights (I could quote you on those, but if I recall correctly is the most translated text ever, so RTF UDHR http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ), is, to say the least, shameful!
Not having official complaints from every other nation proves the state of uncarefulness for your neighbours our societies reached.

Beware! It will happen to you next! (And you have been warned for several years now BTW)

insert mandatory quote here:
" ... Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

The militancy of Gazan politics is the direct result of Israeli aggression and illegal siege. This is by design of Israel's cynical policy - where defense by the victim is spun as ideological-driven attacks, fueled by an incompatible world view.

I'll never convince a Hasbara apparatchik, like yourself. But for those who might want to put the violence in context?

Facts:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/8F184E577967FC7285257AB40057A012
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS WEEKLY REPORT
31 OCTOBER - 6 NOVEMBER 2012 - Gaza Strip

Palestinian casualties by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip:
        Killed this week: 1
        Killed in 2012: 71
        Killed in 2011: 108
        Injured this week: 1
        Injured in 2012: 291
        Injured in 2011: 468
Israeli casualties by Palestinian fire from Gaza
        Injured this week: 3
        Injured in 2012: 19

Palestine is already a state. They declared independence in the late '80s and have been recognized by 131 states. This was acknowledged by the UNGA at the time and the UNGA frequently refers to Palestine as a state and "her territory." The UN doesn't decide who is a state and states don't have to be members of the UN.

Israel controls the Gaza border with Egypt because they are occupying Palestine. Many times over the decades the UNSC has ordered Israel to retreat from Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, starting with resolution 242. However, Israel ignores these resolutions and the USA veto provides the critical diplomatic cover necessary for Israel to continue in defiance. Palestine does not have access to the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice because they are currently not a contracting party of the UN, just an observer. All that stands in the way of that is the UNGA taking a vote, which is coming soon. They are going for "non-member state" status, so they still won't have a seat in the UNGA.

If you leave the US you won't have to pay US taxes.

Nope, the US is about the only country in the world that taxes non-residents the same as residents.

Eritrea is the only other.

FU idiot Yanks. I'm a Brit and can vote with my feet (until Schumer's proposed reichsfluchtsteuer kicks in).

See you by the pool.

Reference: "The Commission on Human Rights was made up of 18 members from various political, cultural and religious backgrounds" http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml

huh! That's even less than your source says we spend on the military, which initially surprised me. But, my first question was: Did they account for spending by the states in their estimate? Further, in trying to sort out the source for the data, the site seemed to repeatedly cite itself in an orobouros-like fashion. Do you have another source?

Is data from The United Nations acceptable?

"So in other words, the USA wants the benefits of the organization but they don't want to pay the dues."

Business as usual. Ted Turner will show up to do the watching, after all he also pays your UN bill when you're too cheap to do it or because the rest of the planet frowns at your illegal wars.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/dev2594.doc.htm

It would behoove us to come up with something a little more utilitarian, and a wee bit less subjective.

Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/art19.shtml
As of 14 September 2012, 5 Member States are officially in arrears in the payments of their dues:

1.Central African Republic
2.Comoros
3.Guinea-Bissau
4.Sao Tome and Principe
5.Somalia

The US, however, still owes the UN about ~$700M. Most of the money is in fees assessed by some UN affiliated organizations (~$400M), although a good portion of it (~$100M) has been withheld because the UN is over budget (they agreed to cap the budget @ $2.5B, but did not), illegally kicked back taxes to US based employees (~$100M), and various other policy disputes (e.g, funding the PLO, giving exhorbiant raised to people stationed out of country, building a conference center in africa during a famine, failing to cap peacekeeping cost to pre-agreed amounts, overlooked a kickback scheme with russian government).

As usual, /.'s libertarians run their mouths without actually having a clue. They seek to impose their definitions of rights on others.

Instead of sitting by while they ruin another discussion, let's start with an actual, legal definition of human rights as determined by a legally-binding body instead of some knee-jerker who thinks his thoughts should extend to all humans. The Declaration of Independence actually doesn't count as a legal document (anymore), so let's dispose of that right away, even before we get to the point of dismissing the US Constitution as a whole because it only applies to one group of humans.

Let's go with the United Nations, the generally recognized body for international affairs.

Oh, Look! They went through this process already! In 1948, when the world was falling apart, they still came to an agreement on what are the basic human rights. I'm going to go with their work rather than some Randian who still thinks John Galt is a hero.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

The most relevant is 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.

Does this give people an entitlement to a specific conduit for exercising their freedom of expression? No. But it does give people the right to communicate through any conduit they choose (as long as they don't do something that infringes on other peoples' rights to use that conduit).

Below are a few of the relevant Articles.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
.
.
.

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.

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 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance wit

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

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.

While this definition doesn't exclude anything, what is explicitly included puts the focus on opinions, ideas and information and the free exchange of those. The term "freedom of speech" suggests that anything that comes out of your mouth (or pen or keyboard) is included no matter what, and that seems to be how it is treated in the US.

What opinion or information does the joke contain? That the month in which they come is the difference between Santa Claus en Mark Bridger? Or that this man is an asshole or too stupid to understand he isn't funny? Hardly the kind of stuff that prompted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I suspect the people who wrote the US constitution had bigger issues in mind too.

If everything that leaves your mouth is to be protected this joke obviously should be too. If the protection focuses on expressions that are part of a free flow of ideas, opinions and information this joke probably is too empty to be worthy of much protection, and then its offensive nature starts to count. But of course the line between what deserves protection and what doesn't is extremely difficult to draw, as human expression can be subtle and indirect, so prosecuting someone for it should not be done lightly.

Although I don't mind that an asshole like that is being told in an impressive way that he went too far, putting him in custody and in front of a magistrate seems excessive. Having said that, I do agree with Instine that the way Americans take freedom of speech as an absolute strikes me as a bit excessive too, it is one factor amongst many. One that should be given a lot of weight, but it shouldn't be a black hole that outweighs any other consideration. I quite like the focus of the UN definition on things that actually matter.

PREAMBLE TO THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONA
    WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

        to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
        to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
        to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
        to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

        to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
        to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
        to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
        to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml

You know what is the far most biggest problem to the environment? It is not AGW, it is the exponential population growth. There are already several billion too many of us.

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.co

You know what is the far most biggest problem to the environment? It is not AGW, it is the exponential population growth. There are already several billion too many of us.

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.co

You know what is the far most biggest problem to the environment? It is not AGW, it is the exponential population growth. There are already several billion too many of us.

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.co

You know what is the far most biggest problem to the environment? It is not AGW, it is the exponential population growth. There are already several billion too many of us.

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.co

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

It looks like the Iran government is directly and intentionally infringing human rights. This is unacceptable.

But South Africa, even as the most developed country in Africa, is arguably not a full-fledged member of the developed world. It is a highly divided society still (as we have seen in recent weeks with the miners' strike.) And it has a very high crime rate generally. One can take little comfort in having better statistics than they do -- cultural differences aside.

Culture of course is no excuse for violations of human rights, which include violence against women. There was a time when a broad swath of the US accepted slavery as a cultural norm. Just because a society itself believes something is right does not make it right. Violence in the home is as wrong in Jo-berg and Riyadh and Moscow as it is in New York or Oslo. The same, of course, goes for rape. Everyone has to do better.

These principles are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No society is permitted to hide behind its culture in order to protect institutionalized savagery and oppression against any group -- women included.

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, violent Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, violent Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, violent Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, violent Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

Um. Where do you get that it violates Article 9 of the VCDR? Here, maybe you can explain how this wording supports your argument:

Article 9
1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.

2.If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

It's also funny how you've somehow concluded that Assange is a "diplomatic agent." He IS NOT. A diplomatic agent is, "(e) A " diplomatic agent" is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;" -- he is not an agent of the Ecuadorean government, and he is not the Ecuadorean ambassador. He has NO "immunities" under the VCDR. He is not a diplomatic agent. And in fact, the VCDR says NOTHING about "refugees" or "asylum-seekers."

"It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy" -- you are welcome to provide evidence of this claim. Here is the actual Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Article 9 allows a state to demand that an "the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission" is "persona non grata" and force that person to be recalled. That is an individual, not the entire embassy/mission. And that's about it, short of breaking off of diplomatic relations, which is not exactly a trivial act.

And, without the ability to "dissolve the embassy", the UK claims to "take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy" implies "storm the embassy by force", if Ecuadoran staff resists.

1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).

That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."

2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.

It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law. That's the very definition of a treaty. The US has stated it has withdrawn from the Vienna convention, which is why it considers itself able to commit forced extradition of other countries citizens without any need to explain or justify itself. It has taken the diplomatic position of "We have more guns. Go ahead and try and stop us, but some piece of paper means nothing to us."

Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.

Yes, well, I see you have your life and liberty. I can't take away your liberty, so I'll just threaten to take your life -- indirectly and politely. It's perfectly legitimate because although it ends the exact same way, I can now say I never threatened to take away your liberty... your dead corpse will still have it. My internet logic is unbeatable!

Legitimacy isn't defined as what you can get away with; It's sticking to what you said before. And the UK signed the treaty, and the treaty is very explicit about this, in no uncertain terms, beyond any internet-troll logic: Once asylum is granted, the other country can't do anything to that person. Not while they're at the embassy. Not while they're in a vehicle leaving the embassy under the embassies protection. Not while they're at the airport getting out of the car. Not once they're in the air. Not anything. Anywhere. At anytime. For any reason. Period. End. Of. Discussion.

To quote directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, source from the website of the organization responsible for its creation and oversight, the UN, Article 22, Item 1: The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission, as wll as Article 29, The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

You'll note it says person of a diplomatic agent; which refers to anyone under the protection of that embassy. It does not require approval of the host country, and does not restrict in any way that diplomatic envoy's right to designate any person as being under their protection, at any time, for any reason.

The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

Do you agree with homeschooling and school choice? I do. See article 26, item 3 at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

I.e. if only one out of a hundred shops in the area refuse to service gays/blacks/etc, I don't see it as sufficient grounds for the state to intervene. But if, say, a quarter of them do that, that's a different thing.

There is a huge difference between discriminating by behavior ("we only give kids to married foster couples") and discriminating by race or gender ("whites only").

And if sexual behavior discrimination must be forbidden, then I would use different criteria than yours.

I would monitor not the "percentage of discrimination", but the _size_ of the companies that discriminate. Individuals and tiny companies would not be restricted. There must also be exemptions for religious institutions - forcing a Christian seminary to ordain active homosexuals as priests would be preposterous.

Opus Dei, on the other hand, is an organization, with hierarchy and purpose - so yes, it could reasonably be involved in undercover projects. That its membership is secret is somewhat worrying, and their general aura of secrecy around their activities does not lend them much trust. At the same time, it's what makes it hard to verify any rumors regarding them, so I have to assume that those are just rumors unless and until they actually are substantiated.

This is simply not true. There is a large difference between discreetness and secrecy. It is true that Opus Dei does not publicize a list of their members; but neither does any religious organization that I know. It is also true that Opus Dei members are generally discreet, don't wear Opus Dei t-shirts, etc. Opus Dei schools do not have "Opus Dei" in their name - but they generally link to Opus Dei in their homepage, and mention Opus Dei in their "about" page. See for example http://www.unav.es/servicio/informacion/mission.
And if you ask a member , he/she will tell it. So when Joe enters Opus Dei, it takes only a few days for his friends to know about it; then, if he is famous, his Wikipedia page will immediately include it. This is hardly "secret".
Second, the Opus Dei teaching is the same as regular Catholic teaching. And the particular "charisma" of Opus Dei is open for all to see: books are available for a small price, and many are available for free over the Internet. See http://www.escrivaworks.org/
Third, Opus Dei is apolitical; and the rare Opus Dei members in political positions are often in centrist or center-left parties.

After Bush, the religion of any American president bothers me. I don't know which will be the next one claiming God spoke to him and told him to do such and such. That said, Santorum bothers me more than Romney in that regard, as I consider him more likely to "hear voices" - his politics seems to be guided by religion much more so than I feel comfortable.

But Catholicism is an extremely stable religion. It is not like the opposition to abortion was invented last year; in fact, the Church prides itself in NOT changing any essential teaching for 2000 years. So you KNOW what a faithful Catholic thinks about social issues (abortion, pornography, etc.); he is not going to "hear voices" and change his mind.

If you mean as a part of valediction, then that depends on whether it's a public or a private school. In a public school, no, since they are not supposed to promote religion, and valediction is effectively a part of the official ceremony rather than a purely personal address. A private school can, of course, set its own rules in that regard.

The 1st Amendment says _Congress shall make no law_ respecting an establishment of religion. So:
1) If the Federal Congress mandated

The third world will carry on starving until they have enough education to limit the number of children they have

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocractic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 :

The third world will carry on starving until they have enough education to limit the number of children they have

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocractic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 :

The third world will carry on starving until they have enough education to limit the number of children they have

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocractic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 :