Slashdot Mirror

...at the Universal Interoperability Council.

The Universally Accessible and Interoperable Specification is being developed as an alternative to existing definitions of an "open standard" primarily because existing definitions: [i] clash with international law governing government procurement and standards development such as the Agrement on Government Procurement and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; [ii] do not adequately address the quality of standards; and [iii] have almost uniformly been bent to accommodate existing standards.

The approach taken in the UAIS is to lay down a set of evaluative criteria that describe the ideal against which standards can be compared. Few existing standards will fully satisfy the criteria. Careful attention has been given both to governing international law and many years of hard lessons learned in the standards development trenches.

The UAIS is a work in progress, but is to a state where I believe it may usefully be employed by procuring entities. However, I caution that the portions dealing with accessibility still need major revision to bring them in line with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which entered into force on May 3, 2008.

You may also find of some use The Interop Glossary available at the same web site. The Glossary is "an evolving vocabulary for the law of interoperability governing electronic data format and communication protocol technical specifications, standards, and technical regulations."

You will find links to many other definitions of an open standard at Wikipedia and a more comprehensive treatment of the subject at Cover Pages.

-- Paul E. ("Marbux") Merrell, J.D.
marbux pine at maple gmail.com
(subtract the trees)

Just being in the country doesn't mean that they were able to do any actual inspecting.

Hans Blix said himself, that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well". Furthermore "access has been provided to all sites" and "with one exception it has been prompt." Source

On top of that, how do you know the citizens didn't support it?

These historical huge demonstrations of concerned citizens were a dead giveaway, weren't they?

Google it yourself. Normally, I provide data (and to be honest, I did, but you seem to think that data requires additional "causative analysis") so as not to burden the reader. But given your needs, this is information that you should learn about on your own. The exercise will be good for you.

The demand for resources by a geometrically increasing population between now and forever sounds pretty infinite to me.

What makes you think we're in the situation where we have a geometrically increasing population over longer than a few decades? Currently, the UN is projecting sublinear growth through to 2050. It is also worth noting that world population has grown linearly since 1970 (see figure 1 in the report) not exponentially. If that holds, then that's consistent with population saturating at around 10 billion people on Earth. A glance at Wikipedia indicates that the current (2008) global population growth rate is half what it was in 1963.

So, if I get you right, you say that you will not act or even stop trying to convince other people that everything is just fine until the poles are molten, the gulf stream redirected, the climate drastically changed and with it the world economy ruined, mass extinctions going on, the oxygen in the air becoming scarce etc.?

I mean, WTF?

I do notw know which scientist got the best model for the climate but here are some facts:

• Due to an improved understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report states with very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] Watts per square metre (W/m^2).
  • Note 1: Radiative forcing is the change in the balance between radiation coming into the atmosphere and radiation going out. A positive radiative forcing tends on average to warm the surface of the Earth, and negative forcing tends on average to cool the surface.
  • Note 2: At the Equator, the Sun provides approximately 1,000 W/m^2 on the Earth's surface.

• Annual average Arctic sea ice extent shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade. Sea-ice decreases overall in summer by 7.4 per cent.

• Temperatures at the top of permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s by up to 3C.

• The maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900 - in spring by up to 15 per cent.

• Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.

• Annual fossil CO2 emissions increased from an average of 6.4 gigatons of carbon (GtC) per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 GtC per year in 2000-2005.

• CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 per cent from 1995 to 2005, the largest in any decade in at least the last 200 years.

• For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of emission scenarios.

• Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected.

• Temperatures in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C warmer than pre-industrial sustained for millennia will lead to eventual melt of the Greenland ice sheet. This would raise sea level by 7 metres - comparable to 125,000 years ago.

Source.

WTF?

I mean, does this not sound plausible? I mean, to me it seems to be highly likely that our process of changing the composition of our atmosphere by releasing gigatons of previously absorbed CO2 would yield some big disturbing change.

So, here you are, not wanting to "believe" this "myth". Okey, so what? What if it turns out to be a real myth? And what if it turns out not to be a myth?

By the time that you will find yourself convinced of this immanent threat to humanity, it will be to late. To late for you, your children, your grandchildren, humanity. As the article tells, in a way it is already to late. Which by no means should be read as: "It is to late to act.". No, like, if you are a smoker, you might already have done some irreversible damage to your body. Which does not mean there would be no purpose in giving up smoking, right?

And what the hell do you think is convenient about your lacy ignorant "I-am-such-a-great-doubter" attitude? You get to drive your SUV without a bad conscience while ruining the planet you have borrowed from your children with it. Oh, how inconvenient that is.

You know

Ah, thanks for that correction. I heard the statistic and was repeating without verifying. The population referred to the west bank as well. Even so the point can still stand.

"Over three-quarters of the current estimated population of some 1.4 million are registered refugees; representing 22.42 per cent of all UNRWA registered Palestine refugees." - http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/gaza.html

"Today, some 300,000 Palestinian refugees reside in Lebanon" (Its increased since then) - http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE18/010/2007/en/dom-MDE180102007en.html

"the 1.7 million refugees registered with UNRWA in Jordan." - http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/jordan.html

And expect more in syria, the west bank, egypt and saudi arabia.

Ah, thanks for that correction. I heard the statistic and was repeating without verifying. The population referred to the west bank as well. Even so the point can still stand.

"Over three-quarters of the current estimated population of some 1.4 million are registered refugees; representing 22.42 per cent of all UNRWA registered Palestine refugees." - http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/gaza.html

"Today, some 300,000 Palestinian refugees reside in Lebanon" (Its increased since then) - http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE18/010/2007/en/dom-MDE180102007en.html

"the 1.7 million refugees registered with UNRWA in Jordan." - http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/jordan.html

And expect more in syria, the west bank, egypt and saudi arabia.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE6D7123AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1429096/British-cameraman-shot-dead-by-Israeli-soldiers.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/06/israel2
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/889281.html
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/item.aspx?type=photo&photo_id=0eY4akVfByfWH&tid=05YG14l3Yj8zn&pn=1
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=5480&Cr=unrwa&Cr1=

None of those are Reuters, none of those are BBC.

Copyright infringement isn't Piracy. Piracy is a legal term defined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article 101. See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm for what Piracy actually means. You'd be surprised how many so called "educated" people get it so wrong.

Overpopulation will kill us all before anything else...

Except for one minor problem: the population of the world is slated to go down starting around 2060 if not earlier. Really. Have a look at the population projections by the United Nations, which if anything have over the years proved to be overly pessimistic.

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

Why is advertising in schools and on public property OK? Shouldn't schools be a neutral place for learning, critical thinking and discussion without corporate interference?

Why should a fundamental human right be something which can be bought and sold?

How come everyone assumes people won't accept a tax increase to fund education?

Why do the people who complain about higher taxes line up at Wal-Mart on Black Friday to buy bagloads of crap they don't really need?

Why is there always money for wars no one wants but never enough for education?

No, but I do watch with growing horror at every step towards a world where fairness and democracy are undermined my a minority for their own gain. Democracy needs to be defended so either speak up or let it get undermined. I've seen enough, so I choose to now comment on it.

But its very interesting you would take it upon yourself to put someone down, for speaking out against the increasing unfairness in the world.

Also there has been more moves towards a global totalitarian state in just 2008 than in any other year in human history. Not enough people spoke up against the rise of the Nazis and look how that turned out. The arragance and fear of a minority of power seekers is leading us into a world where they clamp down on anyone who opposes their point of view. They are beyond fault. They make mistakes like any other human, but if no one is allowed to say they have made a mistake, then the world is heading towards a horrifically biased and uncaring world.

Up until this year, I was not interested in politics, but the more news I see, the more concerned I'm getting at the world we are creating out of fear. If you find my words troubling, then you are sticking your head in the sand and closing your mind to the way the world is going. Just trusting every action of the ones in power, will not result in a fair world. Their corrupt power seeking has been shown to be corrupting throughout history. So they need feedback so they can see where they are causing pain and suffering towards others, as these people have shown thoughout history they are more interested in improving their own position of power, than they are in considering the lives and suffering of the ones they push down, as they seek to gain ever more power over others.

The more they push down, the more who will speak out against the growing unfairness. A few of the current governments (UK and US) have now shown themselves to be morally corrupt. Its time to vote them out, before their growing corruption causes anymore suffering. In a democracy, we have the right to freely say what we think. We have the right to avoid pressure and manipulation designed to silence our point of view. We are suppose to democratic. We cannot be democratic, if we throw away democracy and replace it with a dictatorship. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created to stop this kind of behaviour. Its not my words, its their words...
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I would start with Article 12 from this... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
i.e. "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."

Please note the little word "arbitrary". Is it arbitrary when it happens systematically? Such philosophical questions aside, what this article really says is that these must not occur except as allowed by law. This is just like when the polica can't arrest you on a whim, "just because" - that would be "arbitrary" - but they can still arrest you if they suspect you of committing a crime, because there is a law that says so.

In the same way, if the legislators decide to make a law that decides which web-sites you are allowed to visit, it is no longer arbitrary, and the only way to get around it, as far as I can see, is by either proving that it is unconstitutional or by getting somebody elected that are willing to repeal this law.

"Coherent arguments against filtering also greatly welcome."

I would start with Article 12 from this... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
i.e. "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."

As for governments trying this sort, the UK is probably in the lead :( ...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/15/2222209

Its interesting how so called free countries are rushing towards censorship, control and out right Big Brother, faster than so called bad countries. The power seekers in each country seem to be treating technology as their dream come true. They can use it to fight for powers previous generations of power seeking leaders couldn't have dreamed possible.

We all need to speak out against this sort of thing before its to late...
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=997305&cid=25397001

you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

Not true at all. You're thinking of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a particular feature of the US Constitution and doesn't have any legal force in other countries or apply to non-governmental entities in the United States. (By virtue of the 14th Amendment, it applies to the States as well as to the federal government.) "Freedom of Speech", on the other hand, is a value that exists independent of the US Constitution. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitutions of many other countries and in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which reads:

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.

Yeah, but you're looking at % of pop. that *speaks* x language. I'd be willing to bet that the literacy rate, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/literacy.htm , for some of the countries that speak some of these languages is different.

An illiterate person can probably get away with using the web. And on illiteracy, consider too that if 15% of the world speaks Spanish but only 10% are literate, then it reduces the potential audience let alone those that can afford a computer. Heck, there are families in Canada and the US that cannot afford a computer and they are literate. Sadly enough.

And lets not forget that even if you are literate and speak a language well, it does not mean you can write it. Nigerian 411's being the prime example of this.

But the bulk of that figure for Spanish is made up of people living in Latin America, where studies suggest only a relatively small percentage of the population uses the internet. Cuba has only recently begun allowing PCs in private homes. Some countries in Latin America have less than 3% of the population using the internet; Germany has over 40% (Data refers to years 2004-06; Source) Personal computer ownership per 100 is generally much lower than internet usage per 100 in Latin America, suggesting that this is also a market that can't necessarily choose which software is installed on the computers used.

So, in terms of numbers there are certainly more Spanish-speakers out there using the internet, but a lot of them are in situations where internet usage is rationed and/or not entirely under the user's control. In contrast, Germany has a high rate of internet usage and a high take-up of Firefox - and most users are probably using their own machines, not internet cafes or the like. The figures don't, at first, seem to make sense, but when you take into account the low rates of internet usage and computer ownership in the majority of Spanish-speaking countries, it begins to seem less anomalous.

Who the hell granted Tibet, or anyone for that matter, the right to self-determination?

Well, since China is a member of the United Nations, the UN Charter, chapter XI, article 73 might apply.

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government... accept as a sacred trust the obligation... to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement...

That being said, the official list of non-self-governing territories is basically just a bunch of old colonies, since one of the things the UN is working on ending is colonialism, and doesn't include many things that would actually be found controversial.

The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization has more participants, I think, and then there are a whole lot of random autonomist and secessionist movements. The last group would contain the various sovereignty movements in Tibet, Hawaii, etc.

Oh, and if you think this is all just a bunch of people whining about who's in charge, well, Armenia, East Timor, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Palau would beg to differ, since they were all non-self-governing in 1990 and have UN member status now. :)

The situation is anything but that back and white.

I suggest you brush up on the history of civic code. The development of the Western World has been very much a transition of making ever more entities (individuals and institutions) subject to law. A typical example for such a transitional order would be the civic code enacted by Frederick the Great in Prussia. Of course he was a bit ahead of the curve and actually did not believe in the divine rights of kings famously calling the crown "a bad hat that lets the rain in".

With regards to the US you are almost right as the government does lavish itself with excessive immunity (which is why the court ruling appears absolutely proper). But there are exceptions. For the UK you would be right "as lawsuits against the Sovereign in his or her personal, private capacity are still inadmissible in British law". Pretty sorry state of affairs if you ask me.

A modern approach to law is to start with the universal declaration of human rights and derive all civil code from there without allowing for immunity exceptions.

It goes without saying that much of the credit for this approach goes to the American Founding fathers and Jefferson in particular. Assuming that you are American I'd wish you knew better than espousing this view. It reeks of fatalism.

The document describes things like increased GNP, decreased infant mortality, increased investment, and other increases in standard of living from 1967 until 1984.

In 1987 everything changed. That was the beginning of the first intifada. The wiki article on the 1st intifada tells a story of israeli brutality that does not match with the UN document on living conditions in the occupied terrotories.

What was the real root cause of the intifada? Could part of it be the corruption of the leaders of the PLO, like Arafat, who was filling swiss bank accounts with aid money that were supposed to go to the people he was supposed to represent?

I agree with above posters that the cycle of retaliation has to end. The only way it can end is with education to end the mutual hatred.

As well, there are many jews and non-jews inside and outside israel who are critical of israeli policy. Being critical certainly doesn't make one an anti-semite. But the tone of some of the posts in this discussion belie an undercurrent of prejudice.

Actually, it does infringe on Human Rights as defined by the United Nations.

My family has had a LOT to do with the UN and policies and frankly, this is a misrepresentation of the UN charters.

It's funny how people in one breath damn the UN for inaction, then in the next breath try to defile their charters by bending the definitions inside.

This is a VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. It's an afront to these very "freedoms" that the US has claims they are fighting for.

If you want to not be a tosspot and understand that ALL liberties are ESSENTIAL, read the actal charter - I don't think you will, as you are a /. neo-conservative.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The only place you could get close to equating food and internet access is Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Food makes an appearance in Article 25).

We could discuss the difference between rights and necessities if you like.

*water != access to clean water, though many people would consider cleanliness a basic .

Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

I actually don't believe that 'positive rights' - the right to have clean water, food etc should be legally protected. Negative rights - freedom from torture, detention without trial etc should. The justification is that negative rights shrink the government. Positive rights tend to make it grow.

And extreme case is in the Cold War when Communist countries used the argument that they may provide less negative rights, but they provided more positive ones. Actually that was never true - more people died of famine in Communist countries that actual government repression - despite the fact that these countries theoretically guaranteed the right to food/jobs/houses etc.

Is food a right? If so, how much food? What kind of food? Think about it...

I'm not really sure that I get your point.

Water*, food, shelter, and clothing are considered the basic human necessities, in that order.
You can't really compare them with anything besides each other.

You could alternatively use the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which essentially covers the same material, but with more specificity if you don't want to take things like breathing, sleep and excretion for granted.

The only place you could get close to equating food and internet access is Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Food makes an appearance in Article 25).

We could discuss the difference between rights and necessities if you like.

*water != access to clean water, though many people would consider cleanliness a basic .

So your lack of understanding means it is acceptable for you to ignore reality and substitute your own rendition. And you think it is a bad thing when your called on it?

Seriously dude, take a chill pill and look at the order of events in the perspective of the time they happened. Here is a list of some democrats and liberals who also thought Iraq had WMDs and were a threat. The problem was that we were wrong on a lot of things and it was because Saddam himself was attempting to look like he could still defend against an invasion from neighboring countries by making it appear that he still had WMDs. Now, WMDs isn't some genaric term here either. Rockets with too far of a range or accuracy is considered a WMD too. This is because it is listed under the banned weapons in the UN resolutions that brokered the armistice from the first gulf war.

In fact, there was so many other countries that believed Iraq still had WMDs and hadn't complied with UN orders to destroy them, 15 countries, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Colombia, France, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Russian Federation (formerly the USSR, Singapore, Syria, United Kingdom, and the United States, on the UN security council in 2002 voted for UN resolution 1441 which laid out a deadline for Iraq to come into compliance with it's obligations over WMDs. France and Russia had veto powers and failed to use them. You should also note that while many of the countries I listed voted for the resolution that said Iraq wasn't honoring it's obligations and WMDs were a problem, some of those same countries apposed the US led war and still appose it today. This is important because it shows that we weren't at odds over what we thought about Iraq with other countries, we were at odds with what to do about it.

I find it ironic that people want to call Bush an idiot, then turn around and claim he orchestrated such a big conspiracy. It gets even more unbelievable when you look at all the other countries he convinced in this conspiracy and how long he had been working it when so many liberals in the late 90's were making the exact same statements about the WMDs. I believe your making the classic Monday morning quarterbacking mistake where you already know something that was unknown at the time the decision was made and then attempt to apply it like it was known. While it is correct for history to do this in it's overall judgment of the situation, it is incorrect to do that in order to substitute your own reality over processes and decisions made and the context they were made in.

Combating Corruption for Development: The Rule of Law, Transparency and Accountability PDF || Google Cache

Had concern about WMD been the real motivation, then Hans Blix of the UN would have been allowed to finish his inspection. The Iraqis were co-operating after all. The question of why the US has the right to possess the world's largest arsenal yet tell other people they must remain unarmed, is a separate issue, of course. But as there were no WMD (stupid term), it doesn't arise except as a means of highlighting hypocracy.

mmmmmm....I am an opinionated redneck from Italy, so everyone should take my words with a pinch of salt, but I remember Saddam cooperating little, or not at all; to quote Blix himself, "Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly."

P.S.: as to the "separate issue", the US has been the ONLY nuclear power for about four years, , but as far as I recall no US president talked liberally about "pushing an entire population into the sea", as many arab leaders have done, and Saddam in particular. I do have to remind you that you sleep at night in a house without a moat because the policemen in your country carry submachine guns. do they scare you? are you clamoring against their insistence to control the amount and type of similar weapons on sale? If so, My apologies.

Anyone who thinks these figures are small should take a look at the reported rates of telephone "penetration" by country as reported by the International Telecommunications Union.

In general there were well under 10 telephones (including both wireline and cellular) per 100 people in most African countries as of 2004. For some countries the figure is between zero and five per 100. In developed countries this figure is usually over 100.

The data for Internet usage per 100 population follows a similar pattern but is still well under 100 even in countries like the US. New Zealanders seem to have an unusual fondness for the Internet. There the figure is just under 90 Internet users per 100 population as of 2006.

Look clearly much of what I've said is opinion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I presented it as fact, I think I've labeled it as opinion when it was, or when I presented it as fact, pointed out that I had no actual evidence to back it up, so don't criticise me for the ethics of the methodology I use to present my ideas.

You claim I present opinion as fact, but you'll notice that I explain why I believe what I do and I invite you to disagree. So while I may have said "five years ago bush lied to us" if you just read on a bit you'll notice what I mean by this:

Why not look at your first paragraph,

The problem is that five years ago our president lied to his country to convince us to get involved in a war that has damaged us as a country and made the world a more dangerous place for Americans. At the time there was some controversy over whether or not he had in fact lied flat out. By this point however that controversy has died out. Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to, and everyone is pissed (at least this is what I gather from blogs, forums, slashdot, and from people I run into).

You see, here you state that we were lied to. A lie indicates that we were purposely mislead. if you would have looked closely at my post, you would see that I was taking issue with that specifically. You did not express that as your opinion and in fact make some very assertive claims like "Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to". I already presented good arguemnt as to why that might not be the case. If you read the UN inspection reports you will see a basis for most of what was being said by the president. Then there is the yellow-cake document that kept surfacing from different intelligence agencies around the world with each one asserting the creditability of it. OK, now say this with me, Being wrong does not equal a lie. It could but it doesn't by default. If the president or administration was lied to, and they repeated those lies ignorant of their factuality, does that make them liars? And the answer there is no otherwise you would be a liar every time you got something wrong. Granted the stakes are higher but do some critical thinking here and stop playing the biased troll part. Look at it from all sides. UNSCUM or UNMOVIC was presenting a "risk" over chemical weapons in Iraq well after the 2003 invasion. Just read the quarterly reports and see for yourself.

I don't mean "it's absolute fact that bush lied" I mean, a lot of people believe he lied, and it's an issue that's important to many people. Therefore the media should address it, not necessarily take a particular stance, just address it. Although, now that you mention it, a particular stance would be great (as long as it was presented as such, and not as fact) since it would instigate dialogue. You go on to talk about how everything I say is based on opinion and how I'm pissed that MY opinion isn't being represented. I hope that this has been addressed for you now, and that you don't have anymore misconceptions about me being pissed that my opinion isn't being represented.

First, if you don't mean it as fact, then don't present it that way. Second, the media has addressed it. You missed it because they didn't take a stance on it and do an olbermann. Instead they presented the facts, drew some links and moved on to newer news. It is not the job of the news to shape opinion, it is to report the story and allow the readers/viewers to gather their own opinions and relevance. I'm sorry that you think otherwise.

I've formed my opinion based on nonmainstream media sources, most people dont know of or don't have the time to find these sources themselves. The mainstream is there for a reason, and that's to inform the masses. I am one person, I am not the masses, so while I may be informed, that doesn't prove anything. And when it comes down to i

Even if we did have a constitutional court I doubt it would do much good, since Sweden's constitution is pretty limited.

What I find strange is that I've heard no one speak about the UN's declaration of human rights. I can't think of a much clearer violation of article 12 than this law.

Replying to this to kill my 'informative' moderation, because this isn't right. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Interesting. As a libertarian, I'd be for privatizing most everything for defense, and partially privatizing that. But at least I have a basis for comparison now.

Jobseekers allowance is an interesting thing. I assume that's intended for job search expenses and not basic living, as I don't see how on 73.60 US Dollars a week. That's one social program I'd be in favor of considering for the US.

Now, face reality and sell it to the American people: convince them to pay more taxes to rebuild Iraq, because we certainly can't afford the deficits we're racking-up. Mind, do this while the country is slipping into the worst recession we've seen in 20 years. Be sure to make it plain to them that you have no idea how long it will take, and no, you cannot define quantatatively what the goal is, only qualitatively.

I never understood why the administration hasn't attempted to make a better case or more precisely an accurate case over there. Of course it doesn't help much when the Press seems to be against him and the democrats have pretty much painted the picture that we have lost no matter what along with anything he says or does is wrong. I actually got my information that formed my present opinion from soldiers on the ground in Iraq as well as the UN. I find it surprising that the UN is speaking favorable of the country and the situation in it seeing how they have typically acted like their foot was shoot and they want revenge or something. The UN used to appear as a worthless body that was more self serving then observant to the goals and means of why I was to understand was the foundation of their presences. However, the secretary general of the UN (top dog) Ban Ki-moon, recently was working for international economical support for Iraq in a speach he entitled A new hope for Iraq. In that speech, he notes that Iraq isn't a poor country and can bear the costs of many incentives or efforts. This brings me to the second point of your statement, I'm not exactly sure why we aren't making Iraq pay more for their reconstruction. I know the goal is to let them be in control of their defense and whatnot so the political establishment ends up gaining the needed credibility that would allow us to leave, but at this point, we shouldn't have to be convincing the American people they need to fort the costs anymore.

Still think they'll buy it? You talk about the people of Iraq having to learn to compromise, and yet you refuse to practice what you preach. "Stay the course" leaves no room for compromise, it simply means we maintain or increase our involvement at every turn.

Please tell me what this compromise would be. Our stated goal is to provide security, relief, and support for an emerging government "of the people" that not only has to gain legitimacy by showing it's effectiveness but also by showing it can and will be fair in the process. It's opposition wants to see it's destruction so they can impose a government by force onto the people without any say from the people. Stay the course to me says that we are going to do anything possible to make that happen. Should we compromise and not do everything possible to make that happen? Should we compromise and only put a 50% effort towards helping Iraq become stable? Should we compromise and expect a democratically elected government form and have to organize and fight off all the resistance while watching from the US mainland? The fact of the matter is, the compromise you suggest isn't different Ideas being purposed that would better effect our goals in Iraq but a simple withdrawal from it to let them fend for themselves. The compromises being used to political gain by the democrats seems to be just lets them do whatever and to hell with what happens as long as we can say we pulled the troops home. The most interesting thing about a compromise is that when someone doesn't understand the mission, their solutions don't seem to be anything productive to it. That isn't a lack of compromise, it is a lack of competent ideas coming forward.

This Idea of no plan was demonstrated quite readily when Kerry was running for office in 2004. He campaigned on "I have a plan" but

I Agree with you, and furthermore point you to:
Universal declaration of human rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

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.
(emphasys mine)

Isn't this too broad? I mean, the say "copyright" infringement. Newspaper information is copyrighted. Meaning that any search engine will return copyrighted results.

Just look for "copyright" in google, and for sure you'll get all the pages with the "copyright" notes at the end of the page. Does that mean that "links" to copyrighted information are also illegal?

On the other hand, if google, for example, decides not to link any copyrighted information, then absolutely no "copyrighted" information will be available online, and therefore, many sites (including the UN) will "cease to exist to the world". If they are not indexed, they just simply don't exist, period.

Sure! They just put Milosevic on trial for a laugh, like? And these two - http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm [un.org] . Whatever you say, a lot of civilians died at the hands of Serb army and militias during the Balkan conflicts.

What, 10,000 dead, of which 2,000 were Serb civilians? That's not genocide - that's war. Neither side was clean, that's for sure, but to blame the Serbs for the conflict is just ignorant.

It's been pretty well defined, actually. Human Rights Declaration. See articles 5, 18, and 19.

This isn't rocket science. The civilized people of the world know what human rights are. Don't cloud the issue by pretending there's no way to tell who's right and who's wrong here.

I think this is evidence of a trend towards international organizations to create divisions or authorities responsible for cyber governance/monitoring/standardization/accountability.

I am keeping my eyes peeled for a new division/center in the UN for cyberspace soon.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) had scaled up its plans to hire locals in Aceh to remove debris while creating employment opportunities for up to 3,000 people, from an initial 300, over the next six months. The agency has also provided 17 units of heavy equipment and 60 crew members to clear debris and bodies from the worst-hit areas.

Since the tsunami struck in Indonesia on 26 December, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) has delivered over 4,000 tons of food to 330,000 people in Banda Aceh, the provincial capital. It has also provided eight tons of medical supplies while the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has distributed information on the disease in emergency settings and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has delivered over 600 reproductive health kits.

Keep in mind that it is not just PETA interested in this topic, but "Green" proponents as well. The issue of the Factory Farming Meat industry is that in addition to causing needless pain and suffering of animals, it is one of the leading contributors to Global Warming:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

This is because of the methane (yes, seriously--100s of millions of animals are force-bred in the US alone each year for consumption), as well as the fact that it takes two calories of corn/hay to produce one calorie of meat. This causes increase in petrol used in farming machinery, fertilizers, and transportation for the meat industry.

Since most killing in the world is done by small arms,

Source please.

Natural resources lie at the heart of most if not all conflicts and wars. "The twin roles of natural resources[pdf] in fueling and motivating violent conflicts is being increasingly recognized in strategies for conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding."

Can you point to some actual examples of atheists being prosecuted for suggesting that Christians or Muslims be tortured?

No, I can't, because atheists generally don't suggest that other get tortured for all eternity. They don't because (1) they don't believe that anybody lives for all eternity, (2) most atheists are either religious or humanists and hence object to torture in any form, whether by divine beings or men, and (3) they know that if they speak out publicly, they risk death threats and arrest.

I suspect that your post is just irrelevant speculation.

Well, then you're living under a rock. Geert Wilders film, for example, has been condemned, literally, as "hate speech" by the UN secretary general (here), and all he did was compile a collection of quotes from the Quran and Muslim leaders.

Here are other examples:

http://www.lutononsunday.com/lutononsunday-news/displayarticle.asp?id=306589

http://www.axcessnews.com/user.php/articles/show/id/12315

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-far-righters-arrested-for-anti-islam-protest

You can find many more if you look around, with free speech by students, bloggers, protesters, and others being suppressed for criticizing religions or saying things that "offend" people of one or the other religion.

well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms.

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you do.

From the preamble
"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,"

And from 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."

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Yes there is: http://www.un.org/law/

Don't like it? Resign. From the WTO, U.N., NATO, NAFTA, IOC and other international bodies you are member of. We could probably relocate the U.N. headquarters in some country that wants to be a part of the world as a whole and not act like a selfish, psychopatic criminal.

You must work for Clinton campaign

Actually no, I don't work for the Clinton campaign.

But in any case, not all refugees will choose to return

UNRWA says 4,448,429 refugees.

Israel has a population of 5.4 million Jews and 1.5 million Arabs from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/newpop.html

This page says 80% would opt to return, which means they would be in a majority in a very short time. Arab politicians have called this the 'winning card' that will cause Israel to 'cease to exist'.

http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm
The refugees have a sincere tie to their land and homes. Many have kept the keys to their houses, houses that no longer exist. Many certainly were evicted unjustly, or left in innocence to protect their families from war and from subjection to unknown alien rule. Most refugees who are still alive were quite young in 1948. Many others are descendants who never saw Palestine. Over 80% of the refugees polled in Lebanon, as well as those polled recently by IPCRI and other organizations in the West Bank and Gaza, insisted that they would want to return to Israel, even though the place where they lived no longer exists, and their fields may be home to a housing project or an office building.

Returning the refugees to Israel would put an end to Jewish self-determination, as noted by Palestinian as well as Israeli sources. The large numbers of refugees, together with the much higher birth-rate of the Arab population as opposed to Jews, would soon create an Arab majority. In a seminar held at Al-Najah University under the auspices of the Palestine National Authority, Sakher Habash noted: ... our principles in "Fateh" has always been to liberate all our Palestinian national land and to set up a democratic state on it. This clearly demonstrates that there has been no room for the 242, 194 and 181 resolutions in our literature. However, we to our surprise, have to begin rethinking them. In our literature, all resolutions which deny the Palestinians their right in their homeland are false and completely rejected. This is a principle each of us abides by until we realize our return, I personally hold that we have to stick to the principle, and at the same time we must attempt to arrive at periodic solutions as a step toward attaining the principle viz. Tactic flexibility versus principle adamancy. This, I believe, is the closest approach to the refugees issue. Fateh stance which should be adhered to in the final solution negotiations calls for abiding by the international resolutions.

To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state.

Not only the Fatah, but Arab leaders and media have unabashedly admitted that the refugee issue and right of return are being used as a means to destroy Israel. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser told an interviewer on September 1, 1961: "If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."

A large chunk of refugees are denied citizenship by their host Arab governments. There's a fair chance that these governments would kick them out to Israel if the right of return were allowed. And you don't need a majority to take over the government. Almost all Arab countries are actually run by an minority, anti democratic party. The Mid East web page actually points out that the numbers of refugees have grown much faster than the Palestinian birth rate, partly by marriage to citizens of the host countries who become 'refugees' too. And so do their kids. Arab state media will try to get as many of their people as possible into Israel because that will destroy it.

Basically the Arab leaders and UNRWA have colluded to turn Arab 'refugees', most of whom have never lived in I

You then seem to make the logical leap that any use of secrecy in the last 7 years has been to cover up corruption (and this has never happened at any other time in US history...?).

1. Some exclusively foreign traffic between foreign individuals can now travel through equipment located physically in the United States. Why should that be off limits? Indeed, if telecommunications operators are willing to assist, we should absolutely leverage the fact that we have direct access to the traffic.

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.

Well, first, I was specific about the standard of living that revolves around the poverty line which is often defined by a percentage of the median income levels compared to the income distribution among the people (per capita). So for a comparison in this case, it is quite appropriate. The poor are much richer in the higher per capita countries. They not only seem to have more money, they also have more goods and possesions which you seem to think skews the comparisons. That fact is, that is the comparison I was attempting to make, so it is possible I just used the wrong terminology.

As for canada, You can compare the differences with America a lot easier then you can with China for example. Lets look at the per capita with canada. You see, your about right when you say Canada has as high if not hirer SoL as the US. But when you look at the actual production, you will see they are slightly more then the UK's production. You can say what you want but you proved my point.

I was going to put together another little calculation that showed that actual increase Co2 emissions withing a given country and how it parallels with population growth and standards of living withing a country. Unfortunately, I can't find my links that shows internal Sol within each country compared and the formula breaks down quickly when you compare India and China. However it seems accurate with Canada, the UK, AU, and US. adding the percentage of increased SoL to the percentage of population growth seems awfully close to the amount of Co2 increases since 1990 (non-per capita measurements).