Slashdot Mirror

It would be nice. The Internationa Labor Organization is a "specialized agency" of the United Nations but isn't actively fighting, union style, for a standardized minimum wage

You need to have something of value in order to compromise it. The UN is worthless,

Sure. But, just like Pinky and the Brain, they have a plan.

1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:
(a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;
(b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.,
2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

Essentially, the 12 to 24 NM area is a "hot pursuit zone". Earning a wage 12.1NM from shore is perfectly legal.

most simulations agree that there will be around 1 or 2 billion people by the end of the century

[citation needed]

I don’t know of any population projection that predicts there being only 2 billion people by the end of the century.

The UN population estimate for the end of this century ranges from a low of 5.5 billion to a high of 14.0 billion, with a most likely value of 9.1 billion.

Yea definitely. Article 60: In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of: (a) artificial islands; (b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes; (c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

Chances are ship parked there for any length of time can probably be classified as some type of installation or structure within the EEZ

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm

Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."

Listen, I'm all for the publication of the data and methods these scientists are using. But what exactly is releasing internal e-mails supposed to accomplish? Acting all righteous about "hiding the decline" and then you turn around and censor what you release?! That's pretty funny to me. Who do you think climate change is going to hurt the most anyway? My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet? Or the truly poor people? You know that subsistence farmer in Africa or China where a drought, famine or conflict could wipe him out at the drop of a hat? When times get tough, I'll have to give up my XBox Live Gold Account ... what the hell is someone living on less than $2 a day going to do?

It'll probably turn out like the UN anyway where the US pays $362 million and China pays $29 million so that's some pretty flimsy motivation there when the wealthiest nations will most likely be footing the bill.

Just because it is called copy-right it doesn't become a right, as shown by the fact that it was originally a royal prerrogative to hold the monopoly on printed production. When the crown dropped that privilege, the organizations charged with managing that monopoly lobbied to keep copyright alive so they would still be able to exist.

So no, copyright is a privilege given to a person or a group and it diminishes the human right of access to culture for "the free development of his personality".

And you DO have the ability to see them. Move to the counties where they are broadcast. The fact that you are not willing to pay that price is very understandable. However you do not have any RIGHT to see them if they are not willing to show them.

If you make a movie of your kid during a holiday sitting on a swing, I also do not have the RIGHT to see that movie. Not even if you show it to all your friends and family.

Two completely different points: "they" have already waived their right to privacy when they made copies and distributed them. If I make a movie of my kid _and_ give a copy of it to someone else I also have. I may not like it, I may shun the person that shared it, I may even sue them if they agreed to some privacy contract, but that's it.

If you want to keep your works secret, that's fine and dandy. If you publish, you publish knowing it is now public. If you didn't want it to be public you should have thought about it first.

There is nothing unethical about eating meat.

I seriously doubt that. These are the two most grave concerns:

Animal pain. Animals do feel pain, and from the universal viewpoint of ethics, it doesn't matter whether it's you, me, some other human, an ape or a chicken that gets tortured. Pain is pain and our practices in factory farming causes a lot of it for only a little benefit, which is extremely unethical. (I know there are other approaches to animal's status, but there is no notable modern moral philosopher who disputes that the suffering of animals is a serious concern)

Environment. Did you know that animal production accounts for more greenhouse gases than all of the world's transportation? Yup, and that's not some veggie organization that claims that, but the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It also takes up a lot of water, energy and is responsible for much of the destruction of the jungle.

You are confusing "eating meat" with concerns about the way many animals are mistreated in larger production facilities...

Many employers mistreat their employees. By your logic everyone should not to go to work because it's unethical.

There is nothing unethical about eating meat.

I seriously doubt that. These are the two most grave concerns:

Animal pain. Animals do feel pain, and from the universal viewpoint of ethics, it doesn't matter whether it's you, me, some other human, an ape or a chicken that gets tortured. Pain is pain and our practices in factory farming causes a lot of it for only a little benefit, which is extremely unethical. (I know there are other approaches to animal's status, but there is no notable modern moral philosopher who disputes that the suffering of animals is a serious concern)

Environment. Did you know that animal production accounts for more greenhouse gases than all of the world's transportation? Yup, and that's not some veggie organization that claims that, but the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It also takes up a lot of water, energy and is responsible for much of the destruction of the jungle.

>You were joking, right?

Sort of. If we can't build a 4-mile stretch of suburban highway because it might disturb some rodents then surrounding all of Florida's shelf with 50-meter high levees and turning the entire state into an aquaculture farm is socially out of the question. It's also a 200+ year project that ties up a lot of labor and requires a lot of resources. Between Australia and Cambodia is an even larger area that would also do. I did consider levees of up to 50 meters depth - not 50 feet, which would cover a much larger area than you are thinking - though of course the low-hanging fruit would be first taken.

As an engineering problem in the sci-fi sense of the world 300 years from now when there may be 36 billion people to feed and fuel? It's a fun thought experiment that does solve some problems and is physically possible. There are probably other solutions to this problem that are more agreeable. There are challenges, but the worst of them are not the materials and mechanical engineering.

The medium-variant projection for 2050 is more certain than for 2100 because people who will be 40 years and older in 2050 are already born. According to the medium variant, it will take 13 years to add the eighth billion, 18 years to add the ninth billion and 40 years to reach the tenth billion. According to the high variant, an additional billion would be added every 10 or 11 years for the rest of this century.

Original source here: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf More data here: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/P-WPP/htm/PWPP_Total-Population.htm

The medium-variant projection for 2050 is more certain than for 2100 because people who will be 40 years and older in 2050 are already born. According to the medium variant, it will take 13 years to add the eighth billion, 18 years to add the ninth billion and 40 years to reach the tenth billion. According to the high variant, an additional billion would be added every 10 or 11 years for the rest of this century.

Original source here: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf More data here: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/P-WPP/htm/PWPP_Total-Population.htm

So.. you went to a policical commitess designed to explain sciens ona level non science politician can understand?

wow, you are really just floundering around grasps at any straw to support what , at this point, can only be called a belief. Fantasy might be better.

Without a science background, you skepticism is pretty useless. At this point you are simply looking for something to fit a preconceived bias.
You're opinion does NOT carry the same weight as actual experts. ON fact, as the value of there opinion approaches one, yours approaches zero.

What climate change symposium at UN headquarters in 2008?
http://www.un.org/en/events/archives.shtml#2008

Actually, it was named in '42 by Roosevelt, and from '42-'45 the United Nations were working together to develop the charter, and then in '45 the nations ratified the charter. http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

So yes, the IMF and world bank were created at one of the conferences where governments were meeting to develop the charter for the United Nations and the powers it has.

One of these things is that the two most important commandments are to love God, and to love others as yourself.

Can we not just love others without bringing the magic pixie into it?

Have you read this?

How does it compare the the Ten Commandments?

The big mistake is to assume that The Bible has a monopoly on morality. It doesn't. It's actually a very poor moral guide if you bother to read the rest of it, not just the Sermon On The Mount.

eg. It advocates the death penalty for just about everything. It says slavery is cool - it even tells you the correct way to sell your own children into slavery, ie. The bill of sale for your sons should have a time limit but not your daughters (who are usually sold as wife-slaves).

UN medium-variant population growth estimate from 2004.

The 2010 medium-variant estimate says 9.3 billion by 2050, and leveling off around 10.1 billion by 2100.

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf

Interestingly, there's quite a lot in the UN Declaration of Human Rights but food only comes under Article 25, talking about maintaining an adequate standard of living. None the less, it's still in there.

BTW - CO2 is just one part of the input to the system. Methane and N2O have been and continue to rise and have an significant effect as greenhouse gases.

Details here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/downloads/GlobalAnthroEmissionsReport.pdf
And this is an interesting read: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warnin
 

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Estimates a peak population of 9.22 billion.

I don't think anyone gets why North Korea is actually an ideal choice for the UN Disarmament chair. Check out the website and you'll get a clue. Sure, there's lip-service from the council on WMDs and nuclear weapons, but the major effort right now is toward disarming the civilians of every country. And in that regard, North Korea is an excellent example of how thoroughly it can be done, and a perfect choice to lead the effort in teaching other countries to do the same.

Despite Eric Holder's efforts with ATF's "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious" programs seemed to have backfired, and the disarmament media effort in North America will be significantly curtailed due to the inept handling of that false flag effort. A country like North Korea - probably the world leader in successful disarmament of its citizens, is the perfect choice for restarting the international effort, and assisting the United States in making better progress in that regard.

This is a common myth, particularly in the US. What actually happened was that contrary to the plans of the UN/UK/US to split Palestine in two...the Jewish Agency (zionists) unilaterally declared indepenence in 1948 and called themselves Israel...

If you want to stick to the facts, at least get them right and try to actually READ the article you linked to [I wonder who deemed TapeCutter's comment insightful ?!?SC].
The UN resolution to split this particular piece of land, that was under British mandate at the time, was voted and accepted on November 29th, 1947 ( http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement ).

On the day that the last British soldier left for home, May 14 1948, the state of Israel was declared in accordance with this resolution. The UN recognition in the state of Israel in 1949 (General Assembly resolution: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/044/44/IMG/NR004444.pdf?OpenElement based on Security Council's recommendation: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/055/06/IMG/NR005506.pdf?OpenElement) was granted after the war concluded in an armistice and to everyones dismay, Israel remained standing.

BTW, the palestinians could have declaerd a state back then as well, based on the same 1947 resolution, but all arab nations, including the palestinians themselves rejected a 2 state solution.

This is a common myth, particularly in the US. What actually happened was that contrary to the plans of the UN/UK/US to split Palestine in two...the Jewish Agency (zionists) unilaterally declared indepenence in 1948 and called themselves Israel...

If you want to stick to the facts, at least get them right and try to actually READ the article you linked to [I wonder who deemed TapeCutter's comment insightful ?!?SC].
The UN resolution to split this particular piece of land, that was under British mandate at the time, was voted and accepted on November 29th, 1947 ( http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement ).

On the day that the last British soldier left for home, May 14 1948, the state of Israel was declared in accordance with this resolution. The UN recognition in the state of Israel in 1949 (General Assembly resolution: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/044/44/IMG/NR004444.pdf?OpenElement based on Security Council's recommendation: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/055/06/IMG/NR005506.pdf?OpenElement) was granted after the war concluded in an armistice and to everyones dismay, Israel remained standing.

BTW, the palestinians could have declaerd a state back then as well, based on the same 1947 resolution, but all arab nations, including the palestinians themselves rejected a 2 state solution.

This is a common myth, particularly in the US. What actually happened was that contrary to the plans of the UN/UK/US to split Palestine in two...the Jewish Agency (zionists) unilaterally declared indepenence in 1948 and called themselves Israel...

If you want to stick to the facts, at least get them right and try to actually READ the article you linked to [I wonder who deemed TapeCutter's comment insightful ?!?SC].
The UN resolution to split this particular piece of land, that was under British mandate at the time, was voted and accepted on November 29th, 1947 ( http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement ).

On the day that the last British soldier left for home, May 14 1948, the state of Israel was declared in accordance with this resolution. The UN recognition in the state of Israel in 1949 (General Assembly resolution: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/044/44/IMG/NR004444.pdf?OpenElement based on Security Council's recommendation: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/055/06/IMG/NR005506.pdf?OpenElement) was granted after the war concluded in an armistice and to everyones dismay, Israel remained standing.

BTW, the palestinians could have declaerd a state back then as well, based on the same 1947 resolution, but all arab nations, including the palestinians themselves rejected a 2 state solution.

You couldn't be more wrong in fact.

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

Ive read that Jellyfish thrive more in oxygen depleted waters, and I have not read about the carbonic acid problem. However I still think overfishing is the main problem for fishes. Since carbon dioxide is produced by pretty much any decaying or burning matter and we make up a minority portion of that (albeit significant since its beyond homeostasis) I am pretty sure the fact that people are eating fish far far beyond sustainable levels is the culprit. http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800 . We are talking about 70 percent of species that will be fished out of existence in the next 50 years if we don't do something. Im not against extinctions, and human beings are pretty much guaranteeing their own if they don't stop being short sighted twats.

Chances are the project simply spooked someone with the authority to open an investigation, sothey opened one.

On the other hand, consider: along with its investigative duties, the Secret Service may be tasked with protecting certain individuals when they visit New York. As far as I know, Prince Sultan is hospitalized, but it's not as if he travels alone; perhaps some spoiled Saudi kid wanted an iPad. Moreover, for obvious reasons, New York is not an entirely unpopular destinationfor important foreign officials.

With that said, given Apple's international cachet, it's certainly not inconceivable the project caught the "watchful eye" of the Secret Service for reasons unrelated to computer fraud or financial crimes —"location and disposition of CCTV cameras" may simply be a "checklist item" for a Secret Service protective detail conducting a site survey, thus it's conceivable that the Secret Service was drawn into this "by accident," more or less, and felt they had a responsibility to investigate. The "computer fraud" angle might just be a convenient cover story; they needed a warrant for "off the record" reasons, and, given that one can at least argue that store computers were used in an "unauthorized" fashion, this happened to be "good enough for the judge," and, more importantly, "for the record."

Conceivable "bad timing" aside, I do suspect "arguable creepiness" probably plays as large a part in this case asany "honest" legal and ethical issues.

This is nothing but propaganda. Let us not forget "climategate". The /. audience is perfectly capable of getting those files and reading the source code - pay attention to the comments. Climate scientists make a mockery of the scientific process and it is spectacularly well funded by the most powerful people on the planet. It is well worth reading The Club of Rome's "The First Global Revolution" especially the part entitled "The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man" (page 85). It should be a warning sign when the media presents the science as settled - I think we all know that is never true and is a statement aimed at naive people.

The endgame for this nonsense are carbon taxes that will be used to radically change the way we live. If you would like to know what these people are after read Agenda 21. You can read a synopsis of that here.

We need to stop this now.

Meanwhile, floods and fires continue. I have always thought that the first major impact on society will be on food supplies, with a concomitant increase in food prices. This will at first bring civil unrest in poorer countries, as food takes up an increasingly large proportion of their livelihood. Eventually these high food prices will have a severe economic impact on wealthy nations as well.

Never trust the government. Especially old data from them: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/macro-view/manufacturing-surprise-the-us-still-leads-in-making-things/2134/ http://beta2.tbo.com/news/nation-world/2011/jan/31/T2NEWSO1-us-still-leads-world-in-manufacturing-pro-ar-11399/ http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102761476 http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/120660/20110309/usa-still-leads-manufacturing.htm http://www.mepol.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=214:made-in-america-still-on-top-of-the-manufacturing-game&catid=1:news&Itemid=187 *

Everything I've read shows the Earth's population is increasing geometrically, with no end in sight until there's big food shortages.

Then you need to stop reading alarmist crud and start reading facts:

Here, have a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

And here, have a UN report to go with it: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Yes, the fertility rate in poor countries is well above replacement, but it has fallen considerably, and the fall in fertility in rich countries now almost completely counterbalances it; most first world countries are now reproducing below the replacement rate. And, most importantly, as the poor countries get richer (and they are getting steadily richer), their fertility rates start falling just as they have in the countries that are already rich, a process that has already started.

Ever since the fall of Communism

There was no "fall of Communism". Just a change in strategy. And it's working very quickly.

"They can do whatever the hell they want, and so can any other nation".

I think many people would disagree.

http://www.un.org/en/law/index.shtml

The UK does not have free speech.

Yes it does, via article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights...

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 29 - Section 3
- These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

What a useful document.

P.S. My /. captcha was 'tricked', deliciously appropriate.

The UN is talking about 9000 excess thyroid cancer deaths. Also, your WHO article says the directly attributed deaths are only plant workers and rescue workers. Exactly when deaths are "directly attributable", I don't know, but a problem with cancer is that it's often hard to trace the direct cause for any individual case, but cancer has clearly gone up quite a bit there.

Mind you, you don't even need a major nuclear accident for an increased cancer rate. Children near the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK also have an increased risk of cancer.

Do you find that this sort of sarcastic, straw man form of arguing works for you? Do you have people responding "well, I guess I have been pretty silly about this..."

Sarcastic, probably yes, straw man, it's not. You did list a government official giving information as a reason of proof. All I did was point to a government official giving information about something we know was wrong. The only difference is you supported one and likely didn't like or believe the other.

And no, I have not had people jump to rational thought and recognize how silly they were being. I have however had people dig holes claiming it is different somehow and offering nothing but "they believed one and not the other" as the reasoning for it. I see you are traveling down that road too.

The obvious difference between Iraqi WMDs and Obama's birth on the date and at the place claimed is that the latter had a wide variety of independent supporting evidence. By itself, an appointee or official asserting something is insufficient; when it's in concert with a bunch of other evidence, I take it as another data point.

Your right. There was more evidence floating around confirming the WMDs in iraq then with Obama's birth certificate. Let's list them out a bit and compare them

With Obama's birth certificate,

• you had the statement of a few government officials- check. The same with WMDs
• There are obscured documents- check, the same with WMDs
• News papers and websites reported it as true - Check, the same with WMDs

Did I miss something? Well, I'm sure you will find something. But I didn't bring up the fact that it had been going on 2-3 times as long with the WMDs. I dind't bring up the fact that foreight governments pushed the same concpet and ideas with the WMDs, they just believed a different approach should have been taken. I didn't bring up probably the most damning piece of evidence of all, the UN weapons inspection quarterly reports were saying it was likely that Iraq both still had WMDs and the capability to create them. You can find some of them here and some of them here. And yes, they contradict what the lead was saying just before the war in Iraq.

No, because I didn't bother looking at the content beyond verifying that it was about people arguing that the long form birth certificate is a forgery. My point was that the release of the long form certificate hasn't settled it--there are still a wide variety of birthers claiming that it's undemonstrated that Obama is a natural born citizen. I also haven't gone digging for the original fuel requisition forms from NASA for the Apollo rockets to prove that they did, in fact, go to the moon. At a certain point, it's plainly irrational to doubt, because the justifications for doubting have gone far beyond the justifications for accepting as reasonably proven.

Well, of course the entire point of demanding an un-obfuscated document was to be able to independently verify it. It's just another piece of paper until it's verified. That will take some time as you pointed out earlier. Please don't pretend like this is something that has had 40-50 years under it's belt. Hell, it hasn't even been a month.

But more importantly, you are essentially saying here that no matter what their evidence is, you will continue to believe what you want to believe because you won't both looking at anything. Tell me again, who is irrational? I can understand if you looked at their arguments and evidence and said it's a crock from your own opinion over it. I can even understand if you thought it was real but meant something different then they are making it out to be. But you do not even know what that stuff is and are blindly making those conclusions based on your faith

Do you find that this sort of sarcastic, straw man form of arguing works for you? Do you have people responding "well, I guess I have been pretty silly about this..."

Sarcastic, probably yes, straw man, it's not. You did list a government official giving information as a reason of proof. All I did was point to a government official giving information about something we know was wrong. The only difference is you supported one and likely didn't like or believe the other.

And no, I have not had people jump to rational thought and recognize how silly they were being. I have however had people dig holes claiming it is different somehow and offering nothing but "they believed one and not the other" as the reasoning for it. I see you are traveling down that road too.

The obvious difference between Iraqi WMDs and Obama's birth on the date and at the place claimed is that the latter had a wide variety of independent supporting evidence. By itself, an appointee or official asserting something is insufficient; when it's in concert with a bunch of other evidence, I take it as another data point.

Your right. There was more evidence floating around confirming the WMDs in iraq then with Obama's birth certificate. Let's list them out a bit and compare them

With Obama's birth certificate,

• you had the statement of a few government officials- check. The same with WMDs
• There are obscured documents- check, the same with WMDs
• News papers and websites reported it as true - Check, the same with WMDs

Did I miss something? Well, I'm sure you will find something. But I didn't bring up the fact that it had been going on 2-3 times as long with the WMDs. I dind't bring up the fact that foreight governments pushed the same concpet and ideas with the WMDs, they just believed a different approach should have been taken. I didn't bring up probably the most damning piece of evidence of all, the UN weapons inspection quarterly reports were saying it was likely that Iraq both still had WMDs and the capability to create them. You can find some of them here and some of them here. And yes, they contradict what the lead was saying just before the war in Iraq.

No, because I didn't bother looking at the content beyond verifying that it was about people arguing that the long form birth certificate is a forgery. My point was that the release of the long form certificate hasn't settled it--there are still a wide variety of birthers claiming that it's undemonstrated that Obama is a natural born citizen. I also haven't gone digging for the original fuel requisition forms from NASA for the Apollo rockets to prove that they did, in fact, go to the moon. At a certain point, it's plainly irrational to doubt, because the justifications for doubting have gone far beyond the justifications for accepting as reasonably proven.

Well, of course the entire point of demanding an un-obfuscated document was to be able to independently verify it. It's just another piece of paper until it's verified. That will take some time as you pointed out earlier. Please don't pretend like this is something that has had 40-50 years under it's belt. Hell, it hasn't even been a month.

But more importantly, you are essentially saying here that no matter what their evidence is, you will continue to believe what you want to believe because you won't both looking at anything. Tell me again, who is irrational? I can understand if you looked at their arguments and evidence and said it's a crock from your own opinion over it. I can even understand if you thought it was real but meant something different then they are making it out to be. But you do not even know what that stuff is and are blindly making those conclusions based on your faith

You are missing the point: Osama bin Laden was a living human being and therefor he is entitled to all human rights by our standards (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml). It does not matter if he declares something. I can declare myself ruler of the cosmos. This has no consequence. And when I decide to commit crimes, like terrorism, theft, murder etc. in the name of being ruler of the cosmos then I am still just a criminal which means I am a suspect. When I am proven guilty I am a criminal. And the I am most likely sent to a prison. In the US I might even be killed.

What you definitely missed is: That we have to live up to our standards not to Osama's standards. When we are not able to play by our rules. Why should everyone else believe us. That is exactly what the Chinese did lately. We do not live by our rules because it is always easy, but because we think they are good. so sometimes it is hard to fulfill them. But either we are hypocrites or we live by them.

Looking at the UN's list of countries by CO2 emissions (conveniently sorted on wikipedia), we see that Japan is holding the #5 spot, with 1.25 billion metric tonnes annually and Russia is at #4, with 1.53 billion metric tonnes. Let's assume that "the internet" falls just behind Russia, and has roughly the same amount of pollution as it does.

Now, according to Internet World Stats, there are an estimated 1.9 billion people on the internet. That means that "the Internet" emits less than 0.8 metric tonnes of CO2 per capita annually. For what it's worth, that's not even twice what an average adult human being produces each year just by being alive.

However... checking wikipedia's list of countries by industrial carbon dioxide emissions per capita, we see that 0.8 metric tonnes per capita would put it somewhere between Swaziland, which is #157 on the list, and Paraguay, which #162. (I know that it's wikipedia and you can't count on wikipedia always being accurate, but these numbers are fairly easy to verify by dividing the UN's totals from the previous reference by each country's population. A cursory examination doesn't show any obvious errors, and if the numbers are wrong, I can't see them being out by an amount that would significantly alter my conclusion, below. If somebody else does have verifiable facts and figures that would contradiction my conclusion, please feel free to respond).

So per capita, "the internet" is in the lowest 30%, worldwide... which while it may not be as perfect as some would like it to be, is still pretty damn good. So who wants to break it to Greenpeace that their newly declared "public enemy" is actually one of the world's best in the world at keeping things green?

You do realize that a majority of UN Troops are from the US right?

no, mostly Bangladesh and Pakistan (if I remember correctly the UN payments are high enough to finance 2-3 soldiers for every one send on a peace-keeping mission)

I think you will find that that the UN General Assembly is in fact part of the UN. Inconvenient as that might be for your story.

General Assembly, 8 July 2008

GA/10725

Sixty-second General Assembly

Informal Meeting on Climate Change and Most Vulnerable Countries (AM)

Statements

SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

Link

the UN had an agenda

To its initial goals of safeguarding peace, protecting human rights, establishing the framework for international justice and promoting economic and social progress, in the six and a half decades since its creation the United Nations has added on new challenges, such as climate change, international terrorism and AIDS. While conflict resolution and peacekeeping continue to be among its most visible efforts, the UN, along with its specialized agencies, is also engaged in a wide array of activities to improve peopleâ(TM)s lives around the world â" from disaster relief, through education and advancement of women, to peaceful uses of atomic energy.

They would like to know in advance where they will be needed.

P.S. seriously, /., another site redesign and you still can't parse apostrophes and hyphens? Encode everything in UTF-8 already, jeez!

Citing a report from the UN University, UNEP said that there were now more than 19 million people officially recognized as “persons of concern” – people who are likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. UNEP said that figure is expected to grow to about 50 million by the end of 2010.

That article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with the UN's science reporting. You can't have it both ways -- expect us to believe what the UN says about climate when we can't prove them wrong, and expect us to ignore their claims when they have been proven wrong. Making outrageous predictions like the above is political grandstanding at its worst, and has no place in science.

Food is not a right. Neither is shelter, water, transportation.... all of the necessities of life.

Not according to Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You are using a different definition of 'right' than the rest of the world.

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

In regards to education:

(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.

So no, education as a right is not part of the right to free association. Yes, government subsidized education is part of it being a right.

Anyone who lacks $1,000,000 in their bank account will fall behind their more moneyed peers. Is being rich now a right?

No, but having private property is. Owning $1,000,000 is like having 10 TiB/month bandwidth: no one is advocating this as a human right. Having a right to access Internet in a private and secure way is like having a right to express yourself, to teach yourself, and to associate with others.

A summary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (from 1948)

1. Everyone is free and we should all be treated in the same way.
2. Everyone is equal despite differences in skin colour, sex, religion, language for example.
3. Everyone has the right to life and to live in freedom and safety.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.
5. No one has the right to hurt you or to torture you.
6. Everyone has the right to be treated equally by the law.
7. The law is the same for everyone, it should be applied in the same way to all.
8. Everyone has the right to ask for legal help when their rights are not respected.
9. No one has the right to imprison you unjustly or expel you from your own country.
10. Everyone has the right to a fair and public trial.
11. Everyone should be considered innocent until guilt is proved.
12. Every one has the right to ask for help if someone tries to harm you, but no-one can enter your home, open your letters or bother you or your family without a good reason.
13. Everyone has the right to travel as they wish.
14. Everyone has the right to go to another country and ask for protection if they are being persecuted or are in danger of being persecuted.
15. Everyone has the right to belong to a country. No one has the right to prevent you from belonging to another country if you wish to.
16. Everyone has the right to marry and have a family.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
18. Everyone has the right to practise and observe all aspects of their own religion and change their religion if they want to.
19. Everyone has the right to say what they think and to give and receive information.
20. Everyone has the right to take part in meetings and to join associations in a peaceful way.
21. Everyone has the right to help choose and take part in the government of their country.
22. Everyone has the right to social security and to opportunities to develop their skills.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
26. Everyone has the right to go to school.
27. Everyone has the right to share in their community's cultural life.
28. Everyone must respect the 'social order' that is necessary for all these rights to be available.
29. Everyone must respect the rights of others, the community and public property.
30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I think the UN disagrees with you. According to them everyone does have the right to food.

All the bombs the US sold to Egypt didn't prevent the democratic uprising helped greatly by free flow of information.
Remember: the pen (or in this case the pixel) is mightier than the sword.

As for your "Free speech is not a human right" you are mistaken:
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.

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.

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

Free speech is indeed a global human right.

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

Source: United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/popin/wdtrends.htm

There ya go.