Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Sterling says: Marry the UN and the Net
An anonymous reader writes "SF writer Bruce Sterling is guest-posting on the global-eco-tech blog Worldchanging today and thinks we ought to marry the Internet and the United Nations. 'The UN has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless terror and military adventurism. The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate. Vigilante lawfare outfits like RIAA and MPAA can torment users and ISPs at will. The dominant OS is a hole-riddled monopoly. Its business models collapsed in a welter of stock-kiting corruption. The Net is a lawless mess of cross-border spam and fraud. Logically, there ought to be some inventive way to cross-breed the grass-rootsy cheapness, energy and immediacy of the Net with the magisterial though cumbersome, crotchety, crooked and opaque United Nations.' It's obviously part tongue in cheek, but it does make you think."
Without the International Criminal Court (and the cooperation of every nation in the world), this kind of system simply won't work. It'd also bring up a lot of juristiction questions, such as whether it's okay for the Internet Police to make arrests in the United States, above the authority of the FBI and such. Also, who would watch them if they even had this power? Corruption in the Internet Police would be impossible to stop.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Cats meow and dogs bark. I know! Let's marry them and get an animal that can do both!
The Internet should be for the People, by the People, and of the People. There has to be a better solution than having the U.N. get involved.
Sterling forgot to mention that the UN is as rife with corruption as its member states are.
Take all the UN delegates and let them telecommute. Send them to the UN wiki sight, and let them go at it. Resolutions, pronouncements, the whole bit all resolved through wiki edit wars.
All the world's problems would be solved instantly. Or at least it would be entertaining to watch.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Why not marry the UN and the telephone? That would make about as much sense. The United Nations is a government entity, the Internet is a service.
...and I'm here to help!
The internet is driven by it's users, the UN, the protoype world goverment, is driven by power.
The internet has intelligence at it's ends, the UN intellegence is centralised.
The internet routes around censorship, the UN is censorship.
He's from the goverment and all he does is cost money and fuck things up.
[SCENE: In the cellar, Neil is hard at work with a pick-axe, while Rick is just poking at the floor, hardly moving at all. Vyvyan is standing over them.]
...will rise up and seize control of the state! Brilliant! Revolution!
VYVYAN: Get on with it, Rick, you big poof!
[Kicks Rick aside and jumps in the hole, starting to pound with his head. Vyvyan and Neil alternate for a bit, then Vyvyan's head gets stuck in the hole, and Neil drives down with the pick-axe.]
NEIL: Oh, sorry, Vyv.
VYVYAN: [stands, with the axe stuck through his head] That's OK, Neil. It was bound to happen sooner or later. [Collapses]
RICK: [leans over] You all right, Vyvyan? Vyvyan?! [pause] Great! This is it! I've been waiting two hours for this. It's a revolution!
NEIL: What do you mean, revolution?
RICK: Blood runs! Flags wave! Come on, everybody, throw down your tools and knock down the barricade. Come on, run into the Winter Palace. Run into the Winter Palace and stand on tables, waving bits of paper at each other! Yes! Yes!! Hello, are you the Czar?!
[jumps up and down, excited]
Yes, I am, actually. [points a finger] Bam bam! Tough luck, fascist!!
[Neil takes out a tissue and starts waving it around]
That's what happens to people who aren't working class! Yes, Neil. Listen. I've got everything ready. In ten minutes time there's going to be a massive rock and roll benefit in the drawing room. And right at the climax, the oppressed working classes of this house, that's you, mainly...
NEIL: Right.
RICK:
NEIL: Revolution.
RICK: Watch out, Norman Tebbit!
[The screen tumbles and fades out. It fades back in to find Rick and Vyvyan sprawled in the basement.]
RICK: God! I wish they wouldn't keep doing that!
NEIL: It's the passage of time, Rick.
[Vyvyan stands up, throws up, falls down]
The tighter you squeeze Lord Annan, the more networks that will slip through you grasp.
It would be like a fist full of jello. The tighter they try to make the controls the more you'll see independent and censorship free networks rise. Such as Area Wide Wireless Networks and sub networks like freenet.
What could possibly go wrong?
I'm confused here. Is Sterling proposing that the Internet be regulated to carry only the lowest common denominator of traffic? No political dissent, because China vetos it on the Security Council? No pr0n because a coalition of Moslem states raise a motion forbidding it, then use their block vote and the implicit threat of terrorism to force it through? RIAA and MPAA running hog wild because the US ties humanitarian assistance to acceptance of its IP agenda?
Sterling really ought to stick to the novels, tho' having said that, apart from Difference Engine I haven't been impressed by any of his work.
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
However in reality giving the UN control of the internet is a dream:
- It would require all countries to give up their own laws regarding computers placed in their country (eg. Germany could not forbid nazi-propaganda spread by german servers). A sacrifice few governments will make - and even fewer to the UN.
- It would require the UN to make (many & complex) laws about theese sort of things. Seing how hard it is to agree on something in the UN now, this could not be done.
As I said: nice idea, butBefore too many people start saying "the UN is powerless", please think what the UN actually is.
The UN is a place to discuss problems between countries, to discuss world-wide problems. It is a place to organise solutions with regarding to global problems. It is an umbrella under which people can operate without having to worry from which country they are coming.
The UN consist of, included but not limited to, the Security Counsel, UNICEF (childrens fund) and the UNHCR (refugees). Don't judge the whole UN by the (in)capabilities of one section.
The UN itself doesn't have much power, they have as much power as the contributing countries give them. If the world cries "UN, help them!", but the countries don't give men and material, the UN can't help.
The UN is a place to resolve problems if everybody wants to resolve them, it is not a power which can resolve problems on its own.
bash$
Yeah, let's give the last remaining actual "freedom" we have left (the Net) over to the most corrupt and widely-policing Capitalist Authoritarian organization possible.
Too late. Your IP has been tracked and the CIA will be by shortly to assist your enrollment in a 're-education' program. You'll be wearing Nikes, bopping to Britney Spears, and taping Survivor in no time.
Don't worry, you'll still be allowed choices. Specifically "Coke or Pepsi" and "Doritos, Doritos Extreme and Lo-Carb Mega Doritos Extreme".
destroy authority.
By what authority?
"Germany could not forbid nazi-propaganda spread by german servers"
Who says that the UN will change Germany's law and not just outlaw nazi-propaganda anywhere on the internet?
Creative Demolition
The Internet is still "cool" because it has that lawless wild west sort of feel to it. The useless bureaucracy that is the UN would only make it un-fun. Sure it may be "dangerous" if you dont know what you're doing, but why would anyone wander around the wild west if they didnt know what they were doing.
I can see the charter now:
1. Notice spyware problem.
2. Announce commission to study spyware problem.
3. Approves resolution condemning spyware problem.
4. Watch as spyware problem continues.
5. Repeat steps 3-4
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues (meaning it can skew any issue to suit its' purposes) and refuses to recognise the need for anything like an International Criminal Court and you have a recipe for a dysfunctional organisation.
The UN fails in its' role due to the often devisive action (or inaction) of the US. Perhaps if the US were a better global citizen the UN might have a chance of actually working?
my 2c
If you want world democracy, start from scratch. A political party entirely ruled through direct democracy and consensus is possible. That means that even if the party becomes part of a state or national government, all its political decisions are made by the whole membership. This in itself gives people an incentive to join the party, creating a snowball effect. The key to making the whole thing work is to tie the process of voting on ideas to the process by which people arrive at judgments about ideas, i.e. to connect democratic media and democratic decision-making. That way you avoid the common pitfall of direct democracy, ill-informed voters. You could in fact make participation in the democratic media a requirement for participation in the voting process.
This is not an unsolvable problem. It's just that there aren't enough people who care about solving it. Yourparty is similar to what I describe here, IIRC, although I'm not sure they're doing the democratic media side of things.
It gets more complex when you try to address the major problem of centralization, which has potential for abues. Then you soon get into discussions about replacing the web itself ..
as if the 'net isn't getting screwed up enough with over-regulation. put the UN in charge of it, and you wount be able to do ANYTHING that might concievably offend someone else...
the UN needs to be abolished.
Our glorious, progressive 20th century institutions gave us about a hundred and fifty million real, rotting bodies to enjoy, while this vile anarchic 21st century internet has given us a only few hundred pictures of corpses--and most of them are the same old dead people from the 1900s!
It's just uncivilized.
Projecting from today's numbers, the internet will have produced not even a dozen violent deaths by century's end. Something must be done to end this lawless barbarity before it corrupts us all!
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
If we did create an Internet Council, then perhaps some precautions to prevent abuse. One, don't allow current politicians to hold a position. Two, don't allow anyone who has held a political office in the past six years hold a position. Three, have term limits.
Did any of you RTFA? This is more about implementing a system for UN diplomatic underlings to get work done online than having the UN "take over" the internet. The concept of having a secure, government to government electronic communication system probably would be faster, cheaper and more effective than gathering in Geneva every time we want to discuss the price of cod fish.
How Idealism works:
1. Point out things you are unhappy with, no complaint is to small to be totally blown out of proportion. Make sure you compare whatever exists to a perfection that need not be possible to attain.
2. Propose solution! The solution is to always get rid of the evil conspiracy holding back progress, because the answers to how to do really complicated things on a large scale are clear to everyone and all that stands in the way is the conspiracy.
3. Leave all the details for later (and there are a lot of details). Explain that you or your favorite know-it-all organization have to be in charge of things before you'll even bother with figuring out the details.
4. Get in power, screw up far more than what was there already and blame it on the continuing legacy of the conspiracy.
5. Propose even stronger more drastic reforms. Continue from here to step 4 until people are totally sick of you and tell you to get lost or you've totally destroyed what you were trying to fix to the point that nobody cares about it anymore.
Erm, nevermind the UN, but the net...
Getting married with her sure sounds exciting!
**Maybe I can have flings with PCs and Macs when the net is busy transiting to IPV6 too!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Addition to language noted.
In his novels Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise Suggested that after the Spike/Singularity/quite a while the IETF would be the only vestige of current political institutions and be the UN.
I think it was just a throwaway, like having a door dilate, but it entertained.
Google is currently at its peak, and for the next few years will be THE search engine in terms of Global search but more Local searchers will be established and make it harder for google to gain into those markets. Look at WWW.Renjo.com to see what i mean. Its a fairly new search engine that uses lots of complex algorithms that offer something else to google and its proved popular compared to google but then again arent they all. For one of the Newly minted Google people, id say take the money and go for it yourself and start your own, go to school, do research, retire whatever.
Even peace can only work if both sides want peace. After WW2 the european nations more or less decided that there were to be no more wars (on european soil between european nations, the rest of the world was still open season) and because all of them decided it it happened. Even though spain and england have a dispute over the rock of gibraltar. Even though Ireland and England are in dispute. Even though most of the nations have a long long history of war with each other there has been peace.
But even in europe there are still wars, Northern Ireland and Baskenland, because in those cases one side doesn't want peace.
Or maybe I am using the wrong word. It is not so much a case of wanting or not wanting peace. It is a case of the various sides wanting or not wanting things but not considering war to be a way of achieving those wants.
Simple example. Drugs. The Netherlands has a rather liberal policy on it, France does not. In the past the frence goverment wanted holland to change its policy but not so badly as to go to war. Unlike america wich has gone to war over drugs.
The UN can only work if all the sides involved consider war not really to be an option. It is like those pub fights were arguments flare up and things get out of hand. In some cases both the fighters can't back down but really want a third person to step in and stop the fight allowing both to save face. If however one in the fight really wants the fight to happen the third party is powerless.
Of course the world is not a pub. In a pub you got maybe 4 sides, the two fighters, those who want to watch a fight and those who don't. The world has got close to two hundred countries with each country often having conflicting intrests. The fact that the UN still exists may be considered an achievement.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, and the internet can work just like the UN: put Microsoft, SCO, the RIAA, the MPAA etc. on the "Software Rights" Commission. It would be analagous to Lybia and such being on the "Human Rights" Commission.
The UN is about government force. It chooses by politics, pull, and muscle. It operates by coercion, subtle or overt. To the extent it has any high minded ideals, they operate like laws: instructing everyone how to behave, and threatening punishment for disobedience.
The internet is about freedom and choice. Partly, it works because of mutual cooperation for mutual profit. Partly, it works because of the liberty to NOT cooperate, be a maverick, and invent something new (which might be better), and sell it on its merits. Just like the free market, basically.
It's no surprise they won't mix, they're FUNDAMENTAL OPPOSITES.
Then how come the UN does nothing but try to bring the USA down to its level?
Could you provide examples?
In general, I'm reasonably impressed with the UN -- I'd say that it's one of the greater diplomatic achievements the world has ever seen.
May we never see th
The UN was created to unite countries,
,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
It was created to do no such thing. It was created in order to prevent a third world war from occurring, with the Western democracies (the '1st world') on one side and the Soviet Union and its client states (the '2nd world') on the other.
This was a laudable goal, and to the extent that this did not happen, the UN achieved its goal. Like any other bureaucratic organization rendered obsolete by the passage of time, the UN has endeavoured to reinvent itself. Unfortunately, as the simple facts of the matter are that there exist more backwards, primitive, kleptocratic, oppressive governments than there exist enlightened democracies, the voice the UN speaks with is chiefly the voice of its basest and more numerous members.
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry
That's pretty much the current UN in a nutshell. When it *does* manage to accomplish something, like imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein, it ends up looting the Food for Oil program which was intended to spare the Iraqi people the worst impact of those sanctions.
It's a nest of vipers. It's not even that it's anti-American; I'm not arrogant enough to condemn such sentiment a priorily. But it's clearly anti-liberal, and I use that word in its classic Lockeian sense. The ideals that this country was founded on, that individual liberty is the highest goal for which one can struggle, are anathema to the Westphalian notions of national sovereignity that the UN was founded upon. If we do truly hold that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then how can we go about treating illegitimate governments to an equal seat at the table?
Nations like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Singapore, and Iran make up a large part of the UN. There is no way in hell I want those countries having the merest degree of jurisdiction over what I can do, say, or read on the internet. The very suggestion is utter lunacy.
Politics at that level is nasty, the USA (and not only the USA) has moved to neuter the UN at every step, almost as badly as they did with the league of Nations in the 1930s when they wanted trade with Italy and broke the sanctions. If the USA wanted to go into Iraq without the UN by design they couldn't have done it a better way - the reaction of France to threats (vote with us or face the consequences indeed!) was entirely predictable by anyone with the vaugest idea of international politics (although I still think it was total incompetance and ignornance and not planned).
Well said, and I completely agree with you.
What I meant to highlight was that the UN is unable to solve it's own problems, and has a limited impact on most of the issues that really trouble the world, and has therefore not quite done its job.
The League of Nations failed in stopping WW2, while the UN could do absolutely nothing about the Cold War - agreed, it did not fully escalate into a war - but it was still a very genuine threat. That it did not manifest itself into a war is something we should count as a blessing, and not something I would credit to the UN.
And yeah, while you are right in saying that countries like China should have no right telling you what to read, be aware that a lot of people in the world are feeling the same way about the US, too (am not taking sides here, merely highlighting the fact) -- that's what makes it all the more trickier.
The General Assembly is a joke. Look at most of its committees. Either chaired by the very people they are need to investigate or totally impotent because they spend their entire time bashing Israel?
Jump over to the Security Council where VETO power protects the big 5 from any world responsibility or rebuke.
This same organization cannot even stop obvious cases of genocide because they take too damn long to act. They always want to review the issue, then sanction the bad guy, and only act after the oppressed party is reduced to little more than a handful. Nearly all of election monitoring they have provided was ripe with fraud as they will not put their monitors into situations where they could be killed, in other words - if you promise not to harm our UN people we will say your election was fair.
HELL NO! The Internet will be what reveals the UN for the failure it has become. It will fully reveal all the machinations of an organization taken over by 3rd world dictorship led countries whose only agenda is to oppress their own people and blame Israel.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"? Did you know the US is billed for 25% of the UN's operations (over 30% for the "peacekeeping" operations), in addition to the non-dues support it provides (which has estimates ranging from 15-20+ Billion in the last 8-10 years)?
Indeed, between 1992 and 1997, the US provided "voluntary" (in truth all of it is voluntary, the UN has no rightful or legal claims to *any* national treasury) support topping 11 billion dollars --just for "peacekeeping" activities. A march 1997 report showed US troops supporting such actions numbered approximately 68,000.
Hey, maybe we can just "pay our dues" and stop making all that voluntary contributions. Whaddya say? Wanna trade that 11+ Billion for 600 Million? No? Didn't think so.
Did you know that in fact, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, more than half the member countries refuse to make payments? Indeed, the UN thinks it is owed some 5+ BILLION in USD, yet we don't see you, or other UN apologists, pushing for the rest of the member countries (about 2/3rds any given year) to pay up (BTW, France is included in the top 5 list).
And FYI, the "withholding" of US funds has been tied directly to reforming functional aspects of the UN, such as the portion the UN allocates, the funding of conferences and organizations directly opposed to the United States (something no country should have to support -- organizations that oppose it), and a proper accounting of the US' military support which has far exceeded it's "assigned share".
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues
So does Russia, so does China, France. All five of the permanent members of the UNSEC have veto powers, but that is ONLY limited to the (in)Security Council. "The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US."
Indeed, do you know which country has used their veto power more than the rest? Bzzzt, no it isn't the US, it is USSR/Russia.
-- http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm
In the UN General Assembly, there is no veto power. Indeed, the UN GA can override the SC through UN resolution 377 which allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/a major.htm
And guess which country pushed for that ability? Yup, the nasty old United States, in 1950. But that action has rarely been used. Indeed, only ten times since it's inception has it been used. Why was it not used in the Iraq affair? not enough support. If the majority did indeed oppose it, they were apparently unwilling to go on record as being against it.
Given the actual layout of functions and powers in the UN, your claims fall flat on their face, as the US does not have "veto power over most issues ", that the USSR has used the veto power more than any other member of the SC, that veto is no
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
from the exerpt you gave, it's not the slightest bit tongue in cheek.
in a very short paragraph, he's expressing some views which basically say that the effects of capitalism - which you are taking for granted as sacrosanct - are causing some really serious world-wide problems; that the internet is viewed by those who support capitalism is a threat _to_ capitalism.
except he's not quite come out and said that directly, because, of course, capitalism _is_ sacrosant.
i recommend anyone who believes that capitalism is good, or that corruption and bribery is bad for trade, or that racism extends just to skin colour, to read _all_ of Ian Macleod's sci-fi books, back-to-back.
if you can't hack Ian Macleod then at least go read some of Anne McCaffrey's co-authored books.
It's true that UN has been toothless in power politics.
But you are ignoring tons of vitally important and very successful projects of UNICEF, UNESCO, and other sub-organizations of the UN. They have done really important work for decades, improving the world we live in.
Most peace-keeping missions have succeeded. And all those aid programs, haven't they also contributed to not just well-being, but also stability and peace in the world?
I'd even go as far as to say that what those organizations do every day around the world is the only way to effectively fight terrorism -- remove the causes.
Just a "nest of vipers", whoa buddy. Have some respect where it is due. Those bad apples you mentioned, of course they'll always be in the minority, so who cares about them?
G.B. Shaw once met a lady that told him "Oh, we should make a son; just think how wonderful would it be, someone with your brain and my looks" "Yes, but what if he comes out with my looks and your brain?" What makes sure that the cross-breed will have the best, and not the worst, of both worlds?
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Most peace-keeping missions have succeeded.
FSVO 'success.' The peacekeeping mission in Rwanda 'succeeded' by sitting there and let the butchers finish their work, and then claiming credit for halting the butchery. The peacekeeping mission in Somalia, didn't. The peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia wouldn't have accomplished jack were it not for the US's willingness to spread peace, love, and understanding in 500, 1000, and 2000 lb packages.
Google on 'Srebrinica Massacre' to see what sort of security UN peacekeepers can provide.
The number of genocides that have taken place on the UN's watch is a travesty. The number that have taken place within weapons range of UN peacekeepers is an indictment.
And all those aid programs, haven't they also contributed to not just well-being, but also stability and peace in the world?
Stability and peace are often at cross-purposes with the 'well-being' of the world. UNICEF feeds kids who are starving because of their fucked-up governments, but doesn't do a thing to replace fucked-up governments that starve their own populations. The WHO works to eradicate disease in countries with fucked-up governments, but doesn't do a thing to replace the fucked-up governments that don't give a shit about the poor public health of their populace.
I'd even go as far as to say that what those organizations do every day around the world is the only way to effectively fight terrorism -- remove the causes.
And where, oh where, has the UN managed to accomplish this?
of course they'll always be in the minority
Read down a list of the UN general assembly.
They're not in the minority.
This is a terrible idea from a interesting writer. The UN can't even stop the genocide in Dafaur, Sudan right now because of the utter lack of leadership and less than useful objectives.
I'd say marrying the UN and the net is really CRAZY. We are talking about an organization that can sit happily while people are dying and all the officials know is probably to sit in their nice offices and collect fancy paychecks.
What should be the best solution?
We, the users take the "cyberlaw" into our own hands! The only crime will be that against freedom of speech and the only recourse will be a permanent disconnection from the net!
Once the People have spoken, everybody on the planet (presumably we all will have one small client running) will start sending little packets to those turds.
That should teach them!
Spam from china?
Scam from nigeria?
Well, if nobody does anything, their entire nation's link is not going to live very long under the People's action!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Saddam Hussein would have fallen from power long ago and the Iraq war never occurred had Kofi and Company not taken billions of dollars in bribes in return for helping Saddam circumvent the trade sanctions levied against Iraq after Gulf War I.
United Nations Oil for Food Scandal.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
The League of Nations failed in stopping WW2, while the UN could do absolutely nothing about the Cold War - agreed, it did not fully escalate into a war - but it was still a very genuine threat. That it did not manifest itself into a war is something we should count as a blessing, and not something I would credit to the UN.
Exactly. The failure of WW3 to arrise is not because of diplomacy or organizations like the UN (in fact, the UN was completely paralized because both sides had veto power), it was simply a structural part of the situation -- Mutually-Assured Destruction.
Is it just me, or is griping about the internet the new fad of late?
Oh god, the internet is broken, oh god, the internet is doomed. Oh there's no control over the internet (isn't that a GOOD thing, even with some of the bad stuff?)
I keep hearing over and over from certain individuals that the internet is broken and doomed. I get on it every day and read up on topics of interest, chat with others, download files, etc and it doesn't seem very broken to me. Yes there are a lot of unsavory types and sites out there, but the same applies to the real world. The internet right now seems to work just fine as is, so why made such a radical change to who runs it if most of the problems on the internet are avoidable today? How is making the UN run things going to change the corporate corruption and 'stock kiting?' I don't see how this helps or changes anything.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry ,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
What the hell does it matter what the General Assembly does? Nothing passed by the General Assembly is binding. I agree that the UN is obsolete, but not because of the reasons you're stating. The UN is obsolote because all power rests in the hands of the Security Council, and the power there lies only in the hands of the countries that hold veto power (US, UK, France, China, Russia).
And to even suggest that the UN is 'anti-american' is so utterly ignorant. The US government is totally anti-UN. It doesn't recognize the ICC, ignores international law, and only takes a glance at the UN whenever it is politically expedient to do so. Of the veto-wielding nations on the Security Council, the US uses its veto power the most BY FAR.
As for the General Assembly, it has passed many resolutions that have done nothing because they can't be enforced. Virtually every year for the past couple of decades it has almost universally condemned Israel's refusal to follow international law in its occupation of Palestine, what has that accomplished?
All the international bodies that include the voices of the majority are ignored by the most powerful countries when they give anything but total agreement. Even the WTO, which the US uses to condemn others, almost universally condemned US sanctions against Cuba (only the US, Israel and one other country voted against), but the US couldn't care less about that vote since it didn't agree with its policy.
These international bodies are obsolete because they are totally at the mercy of the whims of the most powerful nations. If they were truly international bodies, where both the minor players with bad records (like Sudan) and the major players with bad records (all veto wielding nations) would be kept in check by all the other nations on the planet (there are 191 member countries including those mentioned).
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
this isn't an article *about* the UN.
This isn't an article where americans can say the UN sucks; (vs.) the rest of the world that says the UN should be in control.
all topics without 'internet' and/or 'net' should be labelled offtopic.
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
When one gets to such extremes, things begin to seem similar. Facism and socialism, while at opposite ends of the spectrum, are generally both authoritarian enough that people use either as a negatively charged synonym for it.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
You're "fudging" a bit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/players/veto.html
From 1946-2002:
Russia/USSR - 121
US - 76
Not quite "BY FAR", is it?
I have three words "Oil for Food" ... Now didn't Koffi Annan's own son get pinched for embezzling multi-millions from the program in a shell game with Saddam Hussein? The only appropriate role is, for the most part what it was supposed to do... provide a "Town Meeting" of sorts.. but AT NO TIME should it be allowed to decide what is best for us or anyone else.. levy taxes on individual citizens...(a stated goal of theirs)... Others in the world have their own agendas and many not so noble.
As much as left likes to think with a rose colored "one world gov't, non-racist, tolerant to a fault, believe in nothing, accept everything, group hug" mentality... the rude awakening they will find is the exact opposite with the majority of those in the UN hating everyone else with a smile on their face, and what advantage they can gain for themselves at the expense of everyone else. They're not interested in long-term anything... only what they can get now. The Chinese have demonstrated that, Bill Clinton was bought and paid for with Chinese money for his campaign as well as having that very same mentality stated above... and allowed the export to China of technologies decades ahead of their own... which the immediately put to use in the development of new military applications and technologies. With the Chinese Army making public political statements that they're just itching for a fight with the US... we have in essence.. given them the means to kill Americans on our own soil if they really decide they want to be a big player in the world again (Vietnam? North Korea?) World Communism again anyone? Oh... I'm sure the campus set today buying the diatribe of the professors there today are all carrying their little red books and awaiting the day. LOL...
C.
he UN is obsolote because all power rests in the hands of the Security Council, and the power there lies only in the hands of the countries that hold veto power (US, UK, France, China, Russia).
Oh, I see. The problem is that backwards-assed medievalism as embodied in nations like Sudan and Iran isn't given enough power to wield on the world stage.
That makes such sense.
The United Nation's policies on self-determination have failed to equitably support the right of self-determination for all peoples. "Peoples" has come to be defined by the UN in restrictive ways that are politically correct. Hence the UN cannot effectively address the need for humanity to have frontiers for peoples of like mind to live out their beliefs.
To have an entity that so violates the need for self-determination be "married to the Internet" would be theocracy's dream and freedom's nightmare.
Seastead this.
The USSR regularly vetoed in the early days of the UN, look at the record recently though and it's a very different picture.
Then bride and groom would unite....
Excellent analogy of a typical dysfunctional relationship. You know, where "I know all my relatives complain that Freddie is a shiftless, lazy ex-con and he'll use me, but we love each other and my love will change him." Likewise, the Internet and the U.N.
IIRC, the Internet worked well under the benevolent dictatorship model. It's gotten so important to commerce and power that such a model isn't possible anymore.
The next best thing to governence, IMHO, is to combine the principle of least government and distributed responsibility.
Blocking services partially and even outright to abusers seems like it should flow naturally from the edge of the network onto the big carriers and service providers if the end-users (unpatched zombie boxes) and ISP's (spam relay) don't do their jobs.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate.
Darn it - my respect for Bruce Sterling has been diminished. This is the kind of naiveness that comes from staying too cerebral and avoiding painful realities of politics, corruption and power. Bruce is still one of my favorite writers, but just as no sane person looks to a Hollywood actor as a credible source for political perspective, extreme visionaries should be thanked for challenging the status quo and proposing radically different (if not absurd but interesting), though usually unworkable ideas.
Consider: US progressives (liberal/leftist/socialist/whatever your label is) correctly criticise many conservatives/right-wingers/etc. for being anti-government - as if the government was some evil autonomous, lifelike entity aka Godzilla. While bureaucracies can act oppressively, the reality is that the oppression is usually a manifestation of individual action and will. Bad governments don't raid the cookie jar, bad people do.
Applied to the UN, it too is not an autonomous "evil organization" in itself and should not be measured on that basis. It is, however, a composition of its elements, and overwhelmingly its members and leadership are crooked and apothetic regarding the welfare of the world's masses. It is comprised overwhelmingly of representatives appointed by dictators and corrupt governments. They appoint UN administrators that mirror their own philosophy (which is why no one should be remotely surprised that the Iraq Oil for Food program reaches throughout UN administration and much of the EU elite - so what if that money Chirac got caused one-hundred thousand Iraqi children to starve - Chirac needs a new vacation house!). Imagine the Internet run by China and you'll have the best-case model for UN Internet (you can guarantee firewalling of ideas will be applied univerally - no UN would permit the criticism by foolish European and US citizens. ) And understand that my attitude on corruption is terribly US-centric; corruption, bribery and coercion are acceptable business forms in most of the world. If the China Internet model didn't prevail, a Venezuela model would be the minimum (perpetually broken, money's always missing, special friends of powerful interests always seem to get all the goodies, everyone on the take down to the smallest guy but nobody is around to make it work and everyone is miserable. Opposition and criticism is loosly tolerated though occasionally results in people being shot).
Just as conservatives need to check their paranoia vs. the UN and "the government,' liberals need to check their heads on their own paranoia and self-loathing of their governments and quit seeing some fabrication of an autonomous world organization to save them from George Bush, Newt Gingrich or whoever the scary monster of the day is. Practical criticism is one thing, but absent effective assessment vs. the rest of the world, their actions will only ensure totalitarianism. Go check the CIA's Fact Book on the political status of world nations.
So what would a UN+Internet look like? No different than Oil for Food. Any assets will be repurposed for the political/power/personal benefit of corrupt powerful interests (and no, not Halliburton - one needs to read about the real private money power in the world and quit subscribing to this misdirection - go read about George Soros and why he's spending so much money to confuse the idealistic young sheep in the US while he instructs his investments to outsource jobs to the third world, works to get US youth hooked on narcotics, etc. Why is Mr. Soros critical of outsourcing when he's one of the most powerful proponents of it in his business?)
Recognize the UN for what it is and will always be as long as most of the worlds citizens are either oppressed or unwilling to stand up for their own liberty.
"Four legs bad. Two legs better!"
The philosophy of the net started out mostly anarchist or humanist - later, the capitalist or libertarian took control.
/.'ers are looking for something similar - so
At the UN, it seems the same.
What I and my friends do is meet and form more Humanist associations and groups - on all continents. For the past year, I've been at it in South America.
I'm sure many
google Humanist-Movement (in proper language) + country / large-city-name
humanist-movement bombay
movimento-humanista +sao-paulo
--------------------
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Stateless anarchy + entrenched beauracracy = goodness? I don't think so.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I don't know who I have less respect for: an undemocratic institution like the UN or loony under-educated geeks who toss around verbiage like "business model" as a subsititute for legitimate thinking.
If something as important to me as the Interent is going to be regulated, I want then regulation done by someone I can vote out of office. I can't vote for my UN ambassador (neither can you).
Nor can I vote for the people running the Internet today. It may be supported by a lot of good people, and perhaps it really is permeated with the spirit of open source, but it isn't democratic. Attributes like open and free don't mean it is democratic.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This was done a looooong time ago. It was called "UUCP"
The U.N. is an organization full of people who've spent their lives prefecting their delivery of "please pass the sweet and sour shrimp." Put that organization in charge of the Internet and you're going to have endless meetings to come to agreement on whether bits should be represented by 1 and 0 or something else. Don't even get me started on anything more complex.
You are on crack. Are you suggesting that Republican thought is rampant on Slashdot? You obviously don't read /. very much. Further, if you think that Republicans are either socialist or racist, you have a shallow knowledge of their history and their political views. And speaking of "shouting the loudest," 4 paragraphs of idiocy is still stupid. In this case, it didn't even sound right.
In general, I'm reasonably convinced that the UN is a den of corrupt thieves - theirs is one of the greater abuses of diplomatic immunity the world has ever seen.
Saddam Hussein would have fallen from power long ago and Gulf War II never occurred had Kofi and Company not taken billions of dollars in bribes in return for helping Saddam circumvent the trade sanctions imposed by the UN itself against Iraq after Gulf War I.
United Nations Oil for Food Scandal [google.com].
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Virtually every year for the past couple of decades it has almost universally condemned Israel's refusal to follow international law in its occupation of Palestine, what has that accomplished?
While Israel has killed some innocent civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, their primary intention is to pursue and proactively eliminate terrorists, with civilians who die in the crossfire an unintended consequence. The problem is that that most of the world and UN, you included, are focusing in on Israel and condemning this country while blatantly ignoring the far more indiscriminate oppression of people in Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Timor. The problem of the UN being practically castrated in its power is only compounded by its obsession to punish Israel due to a large base of antisemitic nations.
Given the atrocities by the head of the Human Rights Commission against their own people in Sudan. Given the outstanding ethical way that they handled the oil-for-food program with Saddam's Iraq. Given the freedom of speech support by the member states of Iran, Communist China, and North Korea. And you want to entrust them your right of free speech won at the cost of blood of our veterans over the past 200+ years?
There hasn't been a successful UN mission without US involvement. They need US, we don't need them. We don't need a psycho dictator from some back water Third World shit hole telling us what we can and cannot see on the internet.
wganz
How many other ways can I toss up information and the entire world can view it if they want?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
WW3 was a little too close for comfort for my liking.
skribe
Blog
Yes, I'm incorrect in that, but if you don't include that first 10 years or so, then it's definitely the US more than any other. In fact Russia used its veto more than 100 times in the first 20 years, and the US didn't use any. But the US has also recently used the threat of a veto to prevent discussion of issues from being pursued by the Security Council.
a b. htm
Russia 80 from 1945 - 1955
Russia 41 from 1956 - now
China 4 since 1972, 1 before then
France 18
Britain 32
In the past 20 years China has used 2 vetoes; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42.
But you're still right, the final total from 1945 is higher for Russia/USSR.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetot
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
As a "student" of history, the U.N. is just about as laughable as the old League of Nations. Heck, they didn't "stop" Hitler when he violated the Versailles treaty countless times, which lead to WW2. The U.N. was developed from the ashes of the League of Nations after WW2, and about the only thing they are good for, is taking up prime real estate in NYC, and, getting its members out of parking tickets LOL. As stated above, they are a corrupt, inept organization who's time has passed. It's time to get the USA out of the UN, before wer turn our selves over to them, and their stupid laws.
Perhaps the UN is completely corrupt and unsalvagable. I'm not granting that but for the sake of this argument, I'll accept it. The thing that frustrates me about American nationalists is that they would rather curse the darkness rather than light a candle. Rather than createing another body that represents the democratic nations of the world, they would rather there existed no trans-national body with acknowledged legitimacy over serious issues like genocide, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As long as no such body exists, America can serve as the global policeman and the tiny percentage of people who can vote there are "supercitizens" who decide how the world is run. The rest have no voice except when they disobey as in Iran, Palestine and North Korea.
You're almost there. Actually it is:
The Icann has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless spam and VeriSign's adventurism.
Intriguingly, a take-off on this same technique of mixing up the incompatible, or doublespeak as Orwell would have it, was used in the thirties as we can plainly see from the acronym Z in the acronym NAZI which stood for Zocialismus or something like that.
The abbreviation Nazi comes from German Nationalsozialistische, "national socialist".
So, the rhetorical strategy, crude as it is, remains the same basically. Just mix up anything that you imagine is popular or unpopular and use it as a blunt weapon to force your position by any means. The Republican Party has a staff that specializes in just such techniques and they've been remarkable successful in their efforts up to this point.
You're not at all clear in what you mean here. Are you saying the Republican party mixes up socialism and fascism to make something more palatable for the "lower class, uneducated types"?
I think instead that they are guilty of the opposite; using the word "socialist" (or even "liberal") to paint their opponents as being of the same political stripe as Mao or Stalin.
Mostly because the UN aren't allowed to accomplish anything. Has the US paid it's bill recently?
h
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
I guess we'll find out whether the USA has
the stomach to prosecute war crimes, without
reliance upon the ICC. Based upon many years
as a student of human nature, and of the USA's
political processes, I would hazard a guess
that we will need both the UN and the ICC for
prosecuting war crimes. Of course, my opinion
also presumes that the UN and the ICC will still
matter (or exist) after a second Bush term.
But he wasn't there to get anything done. The hard part is when you're there to do a real job, like making global roaming for cell phones work.
It was created in order to prevent a third world war from occurring, with the Western democracies (the '1st world') on one side and the Soviet Union and its client states (the '2nd world') on the other.
Not to quibble, but the old European countries are the '1st world', the US and western democracies are the '2nd world' (or 'new world'), and the countries formed after that are the '3rd world'.
AMEN bro,
Bruces lapse of reason to hand over the net to bumbling idiots like the u.n. shows a distinct lack of reality.
Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.!
dont bother bringing your unicef boxes round,kids.
youll get chocolate and bubblegum and just friggin like it!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry ,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
Actually, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice is the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She just went to Sudan less than two weeks ago.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/
But it's clearly anti-liberal, and I use that word in its classic Lockeian sense.
By "classic Lockeian" do you mean pro-conquest, pro-feudalism and pro-slavery? In that sense, the UN is very "un-Lockeian" as much as Locke is extraordinarily "un-American," at least as America has existed since 1865.
The ideals that this country was founded on, that individual liberty is the highest goal for which one can struggle, are anathema to the Westphalian notions of national sovereignity that the UN was founded upon
National sovereignty is anathema to the United States? WTF? Are you not aware that the UN was created primarily by the United States as was the League of Nations? Were Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson anathemas?
I suppose Locke would think so, but his ideals are hardly what one thinks of as "American," no matter what side of the aisle you stand on... unless we have one for Tories that I'm not aware of.
What do you think "Nazi" was short for? That's right, "National Socialism".
Rather than createing another body that represents the democratic nations of the world, they would rather there existed no trans-national body with acknowledged legitimacy over serious issues like genocide, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
You're right, as an American I'm not for creating even the vestiges of a one-world government. In fact, I'm all for America withdrawing from the world stage when it comes to the internal affairs of other nations. I have no interest whatsoever in sending American troops - or American money - to other countries in an attempt to impose rationality on irrational peoples.
Let them slave under dictatorships. Let them massacre each other in tribal genocides. I really don't give a shit.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Your quibble is incorrect. The parent poster has it right.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
You've taken a bit of flak this time but don't sweat it, you are still one of my favorite writers, and the idea is cool! The bit about the UN scares me a little though. I don't think I want the UN moving any faster than it is now, they already do enough damage. Though the CIA may thank you. The idea is neat though, shades of the worldnet game played by Laura's poor husband in Islands in the Net, that image has embedded itself like a wedge in my brain for over a decade. (Good book!)
So I think it would be really neat if this network blackholed the UN, but covered energetic young, energetic government people in different countries since they are the one's who will do anything unifying, the people who send info up to the top and prioritize it. The secret will be let out on a need-to-know basis. By the time these younguns grow up, say 20 years from now, all governments will be internetworked with officials who still use the nostalgic World Wide Web of Nations or whatever they (you) call it, as it reminds them of their starry-eyed idealistic youth and they get some good gossip from it too.
For fun I tried a little search and replace, to make the last paragraph a little more real for some of us. At least those into flattening society and reducing some of the deadweight on top. Partly tongue in cheek..
Hope I didn't wreck what you meant to say. My guess is those sherpas are really using MS Word but they are too scared of the corporate(government) firewall to send RFCs to their potential friends in other countries. Might shortcut a lot of the process and serve to keep Libya and Sudan of the board though!Was not a fundie muslim (well, until the war started anyway when he rediscovered Allah).
You might want to check the propaganda the US government and related bodies is spitting out with regard to the Sudanese "genocide" with a few other perspectives.
Here's one from The Observer that says that claims of genocide by the US administration are overstated and politically motivated.
That's pretty much the current US in a nutshell.Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
and democracies work slowly.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Actually, your quibble is incorrect.
Europe is the "old world", the US and western world is the "new world" and the countries formed afterwards are the "third world".
Hence the sayings "new world order" and "third world country"
It makes sense to me.
We're making an Internet Hive Mind.
It's started with commited group efforts like Free Software. As communications technology develops, we start seeing things like Wikipedia.
As it develops further, we will see things like the project-space network, and local economies and sharing networks. As it develops still further, local governments will be mediated over by well organized electronic communities online.
Really, if this all seems strange to you, you have no idea the power of communications technologies.
Before "wiki," a piece of software, there could be no wikipedia. After that piece of software, it's almost impossible for there not to be a wikipedia. Details could be different, but the basic idea is almost an inevitabilitiy.
We are not done. There's still a hoard of communications software in the pipes. We're just now getting our event systems online. We'll start seeing things like "OverHear," allowing you to hear your friends' public conversations, with voice even. As we get the ability to index the world's voice conversations (with voice-to-text software), we'll be able to ask, "Who in the last 5 minutes said this world," we'll see that the online world will become one gigantic OpenSpace conference. We'll see the conferences, we'll see the group affiliations, we'll see the projects, we'll see it all.
I predict that between 2015 and 2020, the Hive Mind (by some other name) will be a recognized and powerful force. It will also recognize itself and it's own power. We could call this the day that the Hive Mind achieves "self-awareness."
It may even have a military force- I don't know what else to call a gigantic networked mess of sympathetic hackers, chemists, biologists, and lawyers. It is not unthinkable that "the Internet" may become it's own "sovereign nation," of sorts, lack of an independent land be damned.
So, connecting the idea of the UN and the Internet is not all that strange. I mean, what else? What else could it possibly be?
Our next generation "communications software" isn't so much about making it so that messages can be sent from person to person in different ways, but about organizing the existing communications, and about organizing ourselves. We're putting in individual-to-group affiliations, and affiliations amongst groups with each other.
There's no reason to believe that our communications will stop networking and developing.
People do not have their attention on our trajectory. They see half the people downtown walking around with cell phones stuck to their ears, but they don't think that anything can "come next." But it will. There's much much more on the way.
The "Hive Mind" will look less rediculous, I think.
In 5 years, VoIP will be mature, and have basically taken over. Online group VoIP conferences may be primitive, but some ordinary people will be using them. Semantic web technologies like RDF will be in mainstream understanding and use (like XML right now), and our computers will be noticably "smarter" than the information desplay we have today. Tablet's will be cheap and accessible, and we'll tighten up the "I drew something"-to-"There it is on the web" loop. In short, our conversations will be full of napkin diagrams, Visual Language will take off beyond web comics. Our user interfaces will have transcended (finally) the box-ish interfaces, because graph data-structures have taken on new-found importance, and with the new interfaces, we'll see component lan
No... "Old World" and "New World" have absolutely no connection to the phrase "Third World."
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Al-Muhajiroun spiritual leader Omar Bakri hailed last week's attack on a school in southern Russia in which close to 400 people, including many children, were killed, and said that holding women and children hostages would be reasonable for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.
... As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be OK."
- 6577r.htm
Bakri told The Sunday Telegraph, "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040930-114632
An Islamic spiritual leader scheduled for arraignment today on charges of counseling others to engage in a holy war against America told followers that he was "overjoyed" by the crash of the space shuttle Columbia, which killed six U.S. astronauts and one Israeli.
According to court records, Ali Al-Timimi, 40, of Fairfax, a primary lecturer at the Dar al Arqam Islamic Center in Falls Church, also known as the Center for Islamic Information and Education, said the Feb. 1, 2003, disintegration of the Columbia as it entered the Earth's atmospere brought welcome adversity to the United States.
"This morning, the world heard news about the crash of the space shuttle," Mr. Al-Timimi said, according to a six-count indictment handed up in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. "There is no doubt that Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy.
"Upon hearing the news, my heart felt certain good omens that I liked to spread to my brothers," Mr. Al-Timimi said.
The space shuttle disintegrated 40 miles above the Earth. Debris and human remains were scattered over thousands of square miles in Texas and Louisiana. The seven astronauts were commander Rick Husband; pilot William McCool; payload commander Michael Anderson; mission specialists David Brown, Laurel Clark and Kalpana Chawla, a naturalized U.S. citizen from India; and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon.
Mr. Al-Timimi, a U.S. citizen, was indicted last week by a federal grand jury in Alexandria on charges of counseling members of the so-called Virginia jihad to wage holy war against the United States. He also was accused of aiding the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, violating the Neutrality Act, using firearms in the furtherance of crimes of violence and counseling others to use firearms and explosives.
Use Google.
Yeah, airline pilots look down upon weddings where traditionally shots are fired up in the air as immideate threats. Especially when the guns aren't even pointed at them.
Idiot.
it's in my head
Don't forget kiddies, more international government poking around your computer will mean the net will become less politicized, more secure, and cheaper! And if you believe that, I have some primo beachfront property to sell you in Nevada!
What's ironic (and sad) is the fact that the US spends so much on war and military, when just a fraction of that would help the UN a real lot.
Unfortunately, the present administration seems more interested in arm-wrestling the UN into accepting it's decisions, at the risk of losing the money that the US owes the UN.
And we ask where the problems are. Eh.
Funny (actually tragic) how the UN does not care the least bit about Palestinians training their kids to be suicide bombers who try to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. This is perhaps the worst form of child abuse in practice today, and the UN tries to sweep it under the rug. When they are willing to condemn this horrible behavior, then I will say Israel should listen to them regarding the occupation of Palestinian land.
NO REGULATION OF THE INTERNET! Period.
The Internet, by all accounts, has flourished precisely *because* there has been little/no regulation.
The UN will fuck up and overregulate the Internet the same way they fuck up everything else and the Euro-area countries which largely make up the influential part of the U.N. overregulate their societies.
Fuck the U.N. I want the Internet to remain free as in "freedom," not free as in "free to do what the U.N. allows you to do."
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Sorry to dispute with you old bean, but the US is the 2nd world, Europe (and that most definitely does include Russia) is the 1st world.
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
Yes, why don't you Americans fuck off and fester like the rogue state you are. Or you could try and engage with the rest of the world instead... (Y'know once upon a time I used to really like the USA, now I detest it - still like many Americans though, this poster excluded obviously)
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
it would help a lot if you knew what you were talking about before you answer my post.
I dont care what you destest.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
And I have to applaud this idea. We have all seen how good the net is at getting people to talk to each other from very far flung communities - here I am ranting against yanks yet again after all ;-) The processes and mechanisms of the UN are derived from the great committees and councils that were the best way we knew to organise nations over a hundred years ago. Now it is time to move on and utilise 21st century means of communication and organisation within the UN. Committees can now meet virtually on the web. Non-members can contribute even if not present. We can all see what is going on. Surely we netizens can appreciate the possibilities. Sure it may degenerate into flame wars again and again (much as the security council has done for the last 40 years when Israel comes up).
Perhaps the United Nations of the 21st Century will be a Bazaar not a Cathedral?
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
It would help if you bothered to read the original article before committing your arse to your post. Bruce Sterling does not advocate letting the UN run the net, he advocates the UN using the net. Cam you get your single braincell around the idea of the UN debating in a /. style form?
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
So you want to take away the votes of everyone in the US whose ideas are medieval? No vote for Ashcroft? I admit it would solve some issues but it is a travesty. Either you're for democracy or not. You can't promote democracy by dictate.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
If you're for democracy, why would you give a vote to a dictator?
That makes no sense. It seems that if "you're either for democracy or not," and you're for democracy, then you can't support giving the vote to the mullahs who rule Iran, or the despots in control of Sudan, or any of the various other dictatorial, despotic regimes the world over.
And yet that's exactly what the UN does. So if "you're either for democracy or not," then the only available conclusion is that the UN isn't for democracy.
Damn! My bad. Am just as anal myself, do not know how that got by :-/ Thanks.
/. peeve #274: The word is neither "walla" nor "whala", it's voila. Phonics is a tool of the devil.
Nope, you're dead wrong. here is the reference in case you need a link.
First World = western democracies, including the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan
Second World = the old Soviet Bloc countries and other so-called communist regimes.
Third World = just about everyone else
The United States has always been a part of the First World, and no amount of European revisionism will change that.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Kofi Annan has never taken anything.
As for lower officials, I am sure bad things happened, but saying unsubstantiated lies does not solve the problem.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Its still my perogative to blow off about the U.N.
It wouldnt matter If you lashed them together naked on an island with the hopes of accomplishment.They would still bicker,discuss,talk,whine,argue and generally do nothing,just like always no matter what forum.perhaps if you lashed them all together and dropped them in the middle of the ocean......
Bruce is still out of his depth.
You still have no clue.
film at 11.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I've got a cat that fetches things, comes when called, and sometimes makes a noise that sounds like "reowff."
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Tiny little problem was that for a long time america had no nukes and even later could have destroyed only a tiny percentage of the soviet union by wich time the soviets had the bomb as well and the whole nuclear balance of terror began.
Anyway america is in plenty of places right now and that isn't stopping anyone from fighting.
Just like it didn't in korea or vietnam.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How can they tell when the guns aren't pointed at them?
This guy is way out there
That's REALLY EASY. Planes are flying quite high up, gun shots to celebrate a wedding are done in a very different way compared to gunshots fired to actually bring planes down. The pilots are also able to see that there's a ceremony taking place and they SHOULD have been educated in the traditions of the countries they're invading and thus wait a few minutes (fly a few kilometres away even!) and see what happens.
But no no. Trigger happy US idiots likes to kill a lot of civilians instead.
it's in my head
Yep. That's their aim. All Americans LOVE to kill civilians. You found us out once again, Troed. How keen you are! Did it cross your mind that these pilots WEREN'T flying high up and were flying low as military aircraft do?
This guy is way out there
The aircraft were "engaged by anti-aircraft fire from the ground" by what were described as "anti-aircraft guns, heavy weapons."
Did the US aircraft actually come under fire? If not, how did they confuse celebratory small-arms fire with anti-aircraft gunnery? How well did they identify the targets attacked by the AC-130 guns?
The US army idiots have no respect for "foreigners" at all - as clearly shown by the systematic and top-ordered abuse of prisoners. That's why they'll happily bomb just about anyone - because you all seem to think that "Moslem" == "Terrorist" (turn on the TV every once in a while if you didn't know that already)
USA - the land of the idiots.
it's in my head
So we all "happily bomb just about anyone?" And we all think all Muslims are terrorists? How do you generalize so much about such a large nation? The only thing you know about the US comes from TV, methinks.
This guy is way out there
I judge the US by its current actions - and the fact that it seems 50% of the population likes it.
Kerry seems to be the lesser of two evils, but his views aren't far from Bush's. The US will still be a fascist nation ever after this election - you have a lot to do to change that.
(Please look up the definition of "fascist" if you don't think the word fits. It does.)
it's in my head
You have no real knowledge of the US or even the Muslim countries you write about. Your wisdom is limited to the words of others. Remember when I invited you to go to Iraq? I still think you should go. We'll bet 5 dollars on whether or not you show up on a beheading .wmv online. Leave $5 to me in your estate.
This guy is way out there
Umm. The reason westerners are being beheaded in Iraq today is BECAUSE OF THE US INVASION.
But, really, I never expect you to understand simple facts.
it's in my head
I am hearkening back to when you said you could reason with those people. If you need $$$ for a ticket let me know.
This guy is way out there