The RFID tech is relevant because the RFID industry is lobbying these lying politicians to buy their products, with private promises of easy privacy invasion, and public lies.
You really think that's literally what's going on? That politicians are just licking their lips at the prospect of dismantling everyone's privacy, and the first thing on Texas' minds is abusing this tool, and the tollbooth business is just a charade? And do you honestly think that these backroom deals you envision include sleazy promises of how easy it will be to endlessly abridge the privacy of the working class (thereby solidifying their power structure, of course)?
That's an awfully sad view of the world.
The RFID technology itself is hardly relevant. Any other identification mechanism can be abused.
No, he'll say the state already is illegally forcing people into "camps" (e.g. Guantanamo). And they're doing it secretly and without oversight.
And he'll say that he can't save any outrage for when someone proposes his scheme, because, of course, the government will also implement that secretly and without oversight.
And possibly, for good measure, that this is just all part of the great march (executed by neocons, of course) to erode our privacies, or get us used to privacy-invading technology, so that the government can control us a la 1984.
The funny thing is, I actually included a sarcastic disclaimer on the topic you refer to, but I thought the excerpt was clear cut enough to stave off any absurd police state fantasies.
Anyone committing a crime can remove the inspection sticker if they wish, just as they might remove their plates. What's to prevent the state from putting up cameras on the street corner? On ever street corner? On every mile marker sign on the highway? (Cue "they already are in some cities!!" response.)
I guess if you inherently distrust all government, law enforcement, and authority, and don't want them doing anything or using any technology to make their work easier (why not have them wear blinders as they walk around, too? After all, they might see something...) then your response will be predictable.
Sane persons will see Texas' proposal to use it for automated vehicle registration and tollbooths as exactly what it is.
And of course since you come from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Cool! I didn't know that the University of Wisconsin was the "Wisconsin Department of Transportation"! Since, according to you, I apparently work there now, I'll be sure to get that personalized plate I always wanted.
I mean, I'm used to people on slashdot not knowing how to spell. But not knowing how to read...well, I guess that shouldn't surprise me either!
...RFID works only at a very close range. The tags themselves are powered by the radio transceivers that in turn detect them, making their range, by nature, very limited. This isn't a global universal tracking mechanism.
It's a unique vehicle identifier that can be deciphered using the electromagnetic spectrum, similar to the way human eyes or a tollbooth camera might use visible light to view a license plate, another unique vehicle identifier.
Texas is planning on using it for automated vehicle registration and toll booths (relevant bill excerpt below).
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of technology to me. Are we to now fear any new legislation that doesn't specifically and explicitly "exclude [...] law enforcement usage", even if utterly irrelevant?
This may sound trite, but:
RFID != bad
Anything - including a license plate or an old fashioned inspection sticker - can be abused for illegitimate purposes or to abridge someone's privacy. And keep in mind that "illegitimate purposes" is awfully subjective. But trampling - or spreading FUD about - technology is not the answer.
Relevant section:
Sec. 601.507. SPECIAL INSPECTION CERTIFICATES.
(a) Commencing not later than January 1, 2006, the department shall issue or contract for the issuance of special inspection certificates to be affixed to motor vehicles that are inspected and found to be in proper and safe condition under Chapter 548.
(b) An inspection certificate under this section must contain a tamper-resistant transponder, and at a minimum, be capable of storing:
(1) the transponder's unique identification number; and
(2) the make, model, and vehicle identification number of the vehicle to which the certificate is affixed.
(c) In addition, the transponder must be compatible with:
(1) the automated vehicle registration and certificate of title system established by the Texas Department of Transportation; and
(2) interoperability standards established by the Texas Department of Transportation and other entities for use of the system of toll roads and toll facilities in this state.
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger Tiger Woods[1]...and don't forget Java 2 1.5/5.0, which will make its first appearance on Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger[2], is also codenamed Tiger!
[1] Yes, I realize this is an April Fool's joke. Duh. [2] Yes, it will be an additional install. And no, Mac OS X isn't a second rate Java platform; it's just that Mac OS X isn't one of Sun's Tier 1 platforms for which it develops Java itself. Apple has no choice but to wait for certain milestones to be reached, and then essentially port various releases of Java to Mac OS X. This process takes time.
Of course, Gmail was launched last year on April 1st, so that's kind of irrelevant anyway. But yeah, that people can't figure out the difference between this and "Google Gulp" in a couple of seconds is disappointing.
Because there are all kinds of people who did nothing more than "gripe" about the government who are in Guantanamo.
None of them turned up among anti-American Muslim extremists in Pakistan or Afghanistan wielding weapons against US forces, or in Taliban training camps, or plotted to detonate a radiological dirty bomb in downtown Chicago.
You can speak whatever you wish, obvious exceptions ("yelling fire in a movie theater, etc.) aside.
You have more chance of being ostracized or punished for unpopular speech at our nation's leading universities than by the government.
If you're the type of person who focuses in on all police/goverment/authority abuses, and only the abuses, and that's it, I've no doubt you steadfastly hold firm to your statements.
But you frankly have no idea what the FBI is going after this site for. I guarantee you it's not for talking trash about the President or revealing "the truth" about 9/11. We've got enough of that to fill a dozen Libraries of Congress. It's got to be something a fuck of a lot more substantial, and you know it, otherwise half of the blogs on the internet would be subpoenaed every day.
I know these words will be lost on many who read it, and the responses will vary from "FUCK YOU" (including half-assed attempts at jokes now that I said that) to various assertions that we're currently living in a police state, circa 1984. Please, get a grip on reality.
"people are simply ignorant about the murderous history of the FBI"
"At this point let me say, in all honesty and conviction, that if I end up dead by strange means - suicide, overdose, drunk driving accident (I never, ever, ever drink and drive), "accidental" gunshot to the back of the head while sleeping ala Fred Hampton, car jacking, or anything else reasonably suspicious, contact the FBI in Chico, California for more details."
"Though it pains me to comply with the State in any manner"
"[The Oakland FBI] proven murderers and automatons for the state who will blindly follow any order to kill or disrupt without question"
"Freedom of speech does not exist, don't try to test it. They will come bust down your door - for real - point a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you refuse to comply."
The reason there are no clones is because Apple won't sell OS X in a form that can be easily installed in a production environment. It would be uneconomical for a clone maker to buy boxes of OS X to get the install CDs and license documents.
No. The reason there are no clones is because they'd get the living shit sued out of them, they'd have an injunction slapped against them halting all sales of their product, and they be out of business in months.
And Mac OS X can be imaged and configured for distribution easily in a variety of ways. They wouldn't have to physically open each Mac OS X retail box to install on machines; Mac OS X install CDs are identical. They would make one image to deploy on all of their machines' hard drives; this is painfully simple and is done on an extremely widespread basis in enterprise and academic environments that have large Mac OS X deployments. If the license agreement really weren't an issue, they could just include a shrinkwrap copy of Mac OS X with each machine.
The fact of the matter is that signatures are not required to have binding contracts (e.g., credit card receipts that you do not have to sign even when you're standing right there, electronic signing and filing of federal and state tax returns, etc.). So if you want to get on the "EULAs are not binding" kick, go for it.
It might be worthwhile mentioning that CherryOS (PearPC) is not a "MAC" (sic) emulator, but rather a general PowerPC architecture and motherboard emulator. PearPC presents itself as such. However, CherryOS markets and specifically targets itself at Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple's Mac OS X license agreement specifically states it can only be installed on an Apple-branded computer. Aside from the PearPC issues, CherryOS is a commercial product actively encouraging its users to break Apple's Mac OS X license agreement. And yes, this license agreement is binding: that's why no one makes clones. (And no, Apple "ROMs" are no longer required. Haven't been for ages.)
Funnily enough, Maui X-Stream president Jim Kartes said:
We are building an emulator like they are that uses Mac language. PearPC
uses Mac language and next thing you know, they say we are using their code.
This is a totally different architecture.
This comment makes no sense. "PearPC uses Mac language" has no meaning, and is, if anything, indicative of the fact that this company does not fundamentally understand the operation of innards of their product, which isn't surprising, since they didn't create it. PearPC is essentially a PowerPC motherboard emulator, which emulates a PowerPC processor, and various necessary elements of a PowerPC motherboard. I think what Kartes is trying to claim is that because PearPC and CherryOS do the same thing, it's no surprise that they'd appear similar. This claim is absurd, because the evidence is overwhelming that CherryOS is using PearPC as the emulation engine. CherryOS is essentially a graphical wrapper for PearPC, which does nothing more than pass instructions to PearPC and execute PearPC within itself. It tries to conceal, rather poorly, that PearPC is what's running underneath. Aside from the proof of very unique shared strings and symbols above, CherryOS also shares PearPC's featureset, or lack thereof in the case of support for sound and networking, and even PearPC's specific bugs. In sum, any claim that CherryOS and PearPC would share unique strings, variable names, and symbols simply because they're both emulators is ridiculous. Also, saying "Mac language" is really irrelevant because, aside from not making sense, PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't have anything to do with the Mac or "Mac language". It's a *PowerPC* emulator. The fact that a Mac operating system runs on it is incidental; PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't contain or use anything that could be referred to as "Mac language".
Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter (of which there are approximately 184884258895036416 different combinations), shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on, not to mention code from other GPL projects:
It reiterates that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of previous, binding Chapter VII Security Council resolutions that had already authorized the use of force. So to use your example, "France, et al" had been "letting Iraq off the hook" for the better part of 12 years. The only person "lying" here is you to yourself.
There were, previous to March 2003, HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD unaccounted for, that remain unaccounted for to this day. These were weapons Iraq was already previously known to be in possession of. Further, before 1998 and after 2002, UN inspectors were NEVER - repeat, NEVER - given full and unfettered access to any and all sites and facilities. That alone subverts the very concept of inspections. Not to mention that NO inspectors were in Iraq at all for almost five years.
Of course, to focus in on WMD is really ridiculous, since there are numerous reasons we initiated action in the mideast that are a hell of a lot more important and far-reaching than whether or not Saddam still had WMD.
You should probably read all of 1441, but I'll include the important part here for you:
[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the
How can you reconcile these two sentences, when the security council clearly didn't approve the last Iraq war?
It depends on how much autonomy you assign to the UN.
I should qualify it a bit more and say that I don't think that war is necessarily "legal" or "illegal". It just "is". Calling it an "illegal war" has been a tool of people obviously opposed to it. As some level - and yes, this is egregiously oversimplifying - sovereign nations can wage war with whomever they wish, and talk of "international will" is just a fancy way of saying that others disagree.
I was answering your question regarding who should be the one who "decides" within the framework of the UN. Well, of course it's the Security Council. But if the Security Council isn't going to act on the spirit or letter of its own resolutions, then the Security Council being in the deciding position subverts the purpose of the resolutions.
And further in this vein, you might say, well, doesn't the whole Security Council have to decide to use force? Technically, it already did. Three times. The latest being in November 2002. Sure, they collectively could have hammered out a unified response, and some on the Security Council obviously disagreed with the US's response. But if you want to get into "legality" and semantics, 1441 already authorized any UNSEC member nation to act. Obviously you don't want member nations haphazardly and arbitrarily doing things, but I'd hardly characterize the US action as such. We attempted for months to convince the Security Council of the situation, and informed them with ample time of our feelings.
Aside from all of this, the truth is that, while 1441 authorized any and all UNSEC members to use force to ensure compliance, the US doesn't need UN approval for military action. Nor does anyone else.
Though I am clearly against this war, I just can hope that things turn out how you want them to turn out, however I think basing a war solely on this, how should I call it, hope, ideologic conviction, doesn't seem very convincing to me.
While volumes of writings exist on these and related philosophies, I do believe that typical Western-style democracy - NOT Western "culture" - is a good model for any nation or any people. I am fully cognizant of the fact that it's "not that simple", but I don't just therefore give up and decide we should do nothing, and that sometimes, decisive, overt action is required. I'm not one of these people who thinks everything is hunky-dory in Iraq and everyone will live happily ever after. Far from it. It will take *generations* to affect this change.
But what of some short term turmoil, versus a potential couple of centuries of turmoil and a possible Panislamic empire? Even Senator Kerry got it when he said "they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region's governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia."
For many reasons - our own protection, economic (e.g., oil, energy, etc.) interests, the people of the mideast, the long-term stability of the region - we have initiated this policy. I am aware that many disagree with it. It usually seems to fall along lines of being "proactive" versus "reactive" or diplomatic. Traditional "diplomacy" is what we have to use to get Old Europe to understand what's at stake. Especially for them, geographically. Diplomacy is irrelevant in the context of Iraq, pre-invasion. However, diplomacy may again be effective as nations in the region see that there is action to back up our talk. And at that, action that creates free, pluralistic, if temporarily chaotic, environments.
And I can only speak for ourselves, but we're using Xserves in our datacenter, but not for serving Macs or Mac heavy networks: just as general purpose UNIX servers, with very nice administrative capabilities.
I see what you're getting at. I saw what you were getting at when you first asked it.
I'll answer:
Of course it's the UN Security Council that gets to "decide" when and under what conditions to enforce its resolutions. This is implicit in the fact that the Security Council is the entity that initiates the resolutions in the first place.
The point is that the whole Security Council agreed in principle that Iraq was in material breach several times, and again, specifically, in resolution 1441. Nothing substantive - nothing that affected any of the change required by the resolutions - happened for the better part of 12 years.
You can see how someone might say "the UN isn't even enforcing its own resolutions here". They hadn't done it for the last decade, and they showed no interest in doing it in 2002 or early 2003. The UN Security Council was not abiding by the spirit or letter of 678, 687, or 1441, and there was no evidence of any escalating pressure, or any positive movement whatsoever, even WITH the renewed presence of inspectors in Iraq. And yes, it is very important to note that the inspectors never had unfettered access. The whole point of the inspections was so that they would be able to carry out inspections with unfettered access. Any amount of inspections yielding nothing without unfettered access was meaningless: that subverts the whole concept of inspections, which were designed to uncover things that may otherwise be hidden. Thus, an explicit and important need for unfettered access which was NEVER granted.
What's the point of the UN Security Council being the body to "decide" when it acts if it doesn't act on its own resolutions, promises, and assertions?
You're also apparently forgetting that while I believe that the "legality" of the action is not in question, there were other, extremely more important reasons to go into Iraq and institute a democratic government (and yes, this can and does work, by the way; see Germany and Japan for two extreme yet appropriate examples); namely, as a catalyst for positive, democratic change in the mideast as a whole. This may be tumultuous, but free societies, free markets, and, most importantly, a free flow of information, will finally bring the long awaited modernization to the region. And in the process, stamp out fanatical anti-West extremism.
Since we're obviously operating on different philosophies here, there is probably no reason to carry this out any further, though I do appreciate you carrying this out in a civilized manner, even as AC.
Sarcasm aside, I suppose you forget about the 50,000 Iraqis per year - over 600,000 in all - who were estimated to have died by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as a direct result of sanctions. Remember, the only alternative solution offered was the continuance of sanctions and "containment".
Only now has it come to light how unbelievably corrupt the UN management of Oil for Food was, not to mention the literally billions of dollars that French and German contractors netted for OFP contracts administration. A money spigot that turned off, by the way, when the US and UK initiated action in March of 2003.
Sometimes decisive action is more appropriate than years of corruption, which you refer to as "diplomacy". I also find it interesting that you consider waiting for 12 years apparently not long enough to constitute looking for other "alternatives".
First of all, pasting something completely relevant and cogent to this topic was perfectly appropriate. And I understand it perfectly, thank you. It's apparently you who doesn't.
And no, a 1990 resolution does not mean that for all time everyone who feels like it can invade Iraq, claiming Iraq is in breach of a relevant resolution, that's just ridiculous.
So now it fails to be a binding resolution after a period of time? The conditions and specifics of the resolution were still at issue just as much 12 years later: the situation had never been resolved.
You further ignore resolution 1441 (a href=http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm>html), which was adopted by the whole of the Security Council on 8 November 2002.
It says, in part,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions [...]
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions [...]
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, [...]
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991) [...]
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, [...]
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism [...]
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
You should really read the whole thing. It's rather straightforward.
And again, you are totally ignoring the fact the actions were taken, remember, inspectors were on the ground, hadn't found any WMDs and reported that they were making progress.
This is rich. Progress? NEVER were the inspectors, before 1998, or after 2002, allowed the unfettered access to any and all facilities, sites, and records that were required by the resolutions.
NEVER.
The "hadn't found any WMDs" argument is tired and irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that inspectors never, once, had unrestricted access as required. Not finding WMD under ANY conditions other than specified and required by the resolutions is meaningless. To this day, there are HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD known to have been in Iraq's possession that are unaccounted for. It was Iraq's responsibility to either account for them in terms of their location or documented destruction, or to minimally provide unrestricted access to inspectors.
Iraq did neither for over a decade.
I'm astounded by your refusal to admit these facts to yourself, whether or not you agreed with the US action or policy in this area.
There are three kinds of resolutions that the UN can adopt: General Assembly resolutions, and two kinds of Security Council resolutions. All three of these are defined by the UN Charter.
The powers of the UN General Assembly are defined in chapter IV of the Charter, "The General Assembly." Article 14 says,
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
So the General Assembly can adopt resolutions that are essentially recommendations. These resolutions are not binding on the membership, and there is no authority granted in the UN Charter either to the membership or to any agency to enforce them. The most famous General Assembly resolution was 181, the resolution in which the UN proposed its partition plan for Israel and Palestine.
The Security Council has the power to pass two different types of resolution. The first is defined in chapter VI of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes." Article 36 says, in relevant part,
The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
These resolutions are just like General Assembly resolutions: they're not binding, and no authority is granted to anyone to enforce them.
The other type of Security Council resolution is defined by chapter VII of the Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 39 says,
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 41 gives the Council the authority to impose non-military means to resolve threats to peace:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42, the big one, gives the Council the authority to use military force to enforce its resolutions.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
And, finally, Article 43 places on the membership of the UN the obligation to enforce Security Council resolutions when called upon.
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
It's very important to remember that chapter VI and chapter VII are completely separate parts of the Charter. Resolutions adopted under chapter VI can only be dealt with under the terms defined in chapter VI; neither the Council nor the membership has the authority to "promote
I'm afraid it's the current USA administration that is making international law meaningless, not the UN.
I wonder how that follows when it was the UN itself that failed to get Iraq to comply to its own binding, in-force resolutions for 12 years, when its own Charter's declarations actually *compelled* the UN Security Council to act, when instead it stood idly by for over a decade, and sat completely impotent for the 5 years between 1998 and March 2003.
All resolutions regarding Israel were UN General Assembly resolutions, which have no teeth whatsoever. They're symbolic. They're no more meaningful than a city council saying that today is Petting Zoo Day at the local zoo. No UN member nation nor the UN itself has any authority to do anything beyond the simple words of a General Assembly resolution.
UN Security Council resolutions are the only kind that carry an enforcement power behind them. Security Council resolutions, according to the UN charter, carry the weight of enforcement action, including sanctions, blockades, military force, and occupation.
Though, ironically, you made a point: UN Security Council resolutions are of late about as meaningful as the General Assembly resolutions on Israel.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
This makes no sense. Is the submitter saying that somehow, UN mandates or regulation regarding internet access will guarantee internet access in nations whose governments oppose it?
The UN has no autonomous authority, save for what it is granted by member nations.
If anything, the Iraq situation should have taught us that the UN's edicts are meaningless. There were binding security council resolutions not only allowing, but compelling, member nations to act to force Iraq into compliance, and scores of instances of verified, documented, UN-acknowledged material breach of its binding resolutions on the part of Iraq. And still, there was no meaningful action. Some UN member nations ended up having to act on their own. To say nothing of the massive corruption in the UN's management of the Oil for Food Programme that is *still* coming to light.
UN regulation of the internet (save for standards bodies such as the ITU) is the worst think you could possibly wish for if unfettered access to information via the internet is your ultimate goal.
Slashdot Mirror
The RFID tech is relevant because the RFID industry is lobbying these lying politicians to buy their products, with private promises of easy privacy invasion, and public lies.
You really think that's literally what's going on? That politicians are just licking their lips at the prospect of dismantling everyone's privacy, and the first thing on Texas' minds is abusing this tool, and the tollbooth business is just a charade? And do you honestly think that these backroom deals you envision include sleazy promises of how easy it will be to endlessly abridge the privacy of the working class (thereby solidifying their power structure, of course)?
That's an awfully sad view of the world.
The RFID technology itself is hardly relevant. Any other identification mechanism can be abused.
No, he'll say the state already is illegally forcing people into "camps" (e.g. Guantanamo). And they're doing it secretly and without oversight. And he'll say that he can't save any outrage for when someone proposes his scheme, because, of course, the government will also implement that secretly and without oversight. And possibly, for good measure, that this is just all part of the great march (executed by neocons, of course) to erode our privacies, or get us used to privacy-invading technology, so that the government can control us a la 1984.
The funny thing is, I actually included a sarcastic disclaimer on the topic you refer to, but I thought the excerpt was clear cut enough to stave off any absurd police state fantasies.
Anyone committing a crime can remove the inspection sticker if they wish, just as they might remove their plates. What's to prevent the state from putting up cameras on the street corner? On ever street corner? On every mile marker sign on the highway? (Cue "they already are in some cities!!" response.)
I guess if you inherently distrust all government, law enforcement, and authority, and don't want them doing anything or using any technology to make their work easier (why not have them wear blinders as they walk around, too? After all, they might see something...) then your response will be predictable.
Sane persons will see Texas' proposal to use it for automated vehicle registration and tollbooths as exactly what it is.
And of course since you come from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Cool! I didn't know that the University of Wisconsin was the "Wisconsin Department of Transportation"! Since, according to you, I apparently work there now, I'll be sure to get that personalized plate I always wanted.
I mean, I'm used to people on slashdot not knowing how to spell. But not knowing how to read...well, I guess that shouldn't surprise me either!
The privacy implications are mind boggling....
*Cough*
You can't be serious.
First of all, this tag is going in a freaking inspection sticker.
Second, this is for CLOSE RANGE USE ONLY. You know, what all RFID is used for.
Third, no, the privacy implications are not "mind boggling". How about you make a thicker version of your tinfoil hat?
...RFID works only at a very close range. The tags themselves are powered by the radio transceivers that in turn detect them, making their range, by nature, very limited. This isn't a global universal tracking mechanism.
It's a unique vehicle identifier that can be deciphered using the electromagnetic spectrum, similar to the way human eyes or a tollbooth camera might use visible light to view a license plate, another unique vehicle identifier.
Texas is planning on using it for automated vehicle registration and toll booths (relevant bill excerpt below).
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of technology to me. Are we to now fear any new legislation that doesn't specifically and explicitly "exclude [...] law enforcement usage", even if utterly irrelevant?
This may sound trite, but:
RFID != bad
Anything - including a license plate or an old fashioned inspection sticker - can be abused for illegitimate purposes or to abridge someone's privacy. And keep in mind that "illegitimate purposes" is awfully subjective. But trampling - or spreading FUD about - technology is not the answer.
Relevant section:
Sec. 601.507. SPECIAL INSPECTION CERTIFICATES.
(a) Commencing not later than January 1, 2006, the department shall
issue or contract for the issuance of special inspection
certificates to be affixed to motor vehicles that are inspected and
found to be in proper and safe condition under Chapter 548.
(b) An inspection certificate under this section must
contain a tamper-resistant transponder, and at a minimum, be
capable of storing:
(1) the transponder's unique identification number;
and
(2) the make, model, and vehicle identification number
of the vehicle to which the certificate is affixed.
(c) In addition, the transponder must be compatible with:
(1) the automated vehicle registration and
certificate of title system established by the Texas Department of
Transportation; and
(2) interoperability standards established by the
Texas Department of Transportation and other entities for use of
the system of toll roads and toll facilities in this state.
It's Tiger+Tiger+Tiger:
...and don't forget Java 2 1.5/5.0, which will make its first appearance on Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger[2], is also codenamed Tiger!
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
Tiger Woods[1]
[1] Yes, I realize this is an April Fool's joke. Duh.
[2] Yes, it will be an additional install. And no, Mac OS X isn't a second rate Java platform; it's just that Mac OS X isn't one of Sun's Tier 1 platforms for which it develops Java itself. Apple has no choice but to wait for certain milestones to be reached, and then essentially port various releases of Java to Mac OS X. This process takes time.
Of course, Gmail was launched last year on April 1st, so that's kind of irrelevant anyway. But yeah, that people can't figure out the difference between this and "Google Gulp" in a couple of seconds is disappointing.
None of them turned up among anti-American Muslim extremists in Pakistan or Afghanistan wielding weapons against US forces, or in Taliban training camps, or plotted to detonate a radiological dirty bomb in downtown Chicago.
...
Bullshit.
You can speak whatever you wish, obvious exceptions ("yelling fire in a movie theater, etc.) aside.
You have more chance of being ostracized or punished for unpopular speech at our nation's leading universities than by the government.
If you're the type of person who focuses in on all police/goverment/authority abuses, and only the abuses, and that's it, I've no doubt you steadfastly hold firm to your statements.
But you frankly have no idea what the FBI is going after this site for. I guarantee you it's not for talking trash about the President or revealing "the truth" about 9/11. We've got enough of that to fill a dozen Libraries of Congress. It's got to be something a fuck of a lot more substantial, and you know it, otherwise half of the blogs on the internet would be subpoenaed every day.
I know these words will be lost on many who read it, and the responses will vary from "FUCK YOU" (including half-assed attempts at jokes now that I said that) to various assertions that we're currently living in a police state, circa 1984. Please, get a grip on reality.
"people are simply ignorant about the murderous history of the FBI"
"At this point let me say, in all honesty and conviction, that if I end up dead by strange means - suicide, overdose, drunk driving accident (I never, ever, ever drink and drive), "accidental" gunshot to the back of the head while sleeping ala Fred Hampton, car jacking, or anything else reasonably suspicious, contact the FBI in Chico, California for more details."
"Though it pains me to comply with the State in any manner"
"[The Oakland FBI] proven murderers and automatons for the state who will blindly follow any order to kill or disrupt without question"
"Freedom of speech does not exist, don't try to test it. They will come bust down your door - for real - point a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you refuse to comply."
I see nothing there that is repeated in my post, and additionally, I included that URL in my post as "previous slashdot coverage".
But thanks for your concern.
The reason there are no clones is because Apple won't sell OS X in a form that can be easily installed in a production environment. It would be uneconomical for a clone maker to buy boxes of OS X to get the install CDs and license documents.
No. The reason there are no clones is because they'd get the living shit sued out of them, they'd have an injunction slapped against them halting all sales of their product, and they be out of business in months.
And Mac OS X can be imaged and configured for distribution easily in a variety of ways. They wouldn't have to physically open each Mac OS X retail box to install on machines; Mac OS X install CDs are identical. They would make one image to deploy on all of their machines' hard drives; this is painfully simple and is done on an extremely widespread basis in enterprise and academic environments that have large Mac OS X deployments. If the license agreement really weren't an issue, they could just include a shrinkwrap copy of Mac OS X with each machine.
The fact of the matter is that signatures are not required to have binding contracts (e.g., credit card receipts that you do not have to sign even when you're standing right there, electronic signing and filing of federal and state tax returns, etc.). So if you want to get on the "EULAs are not binding" kick, go for it.
It might be worthwhile mentioning that CherryOS (PearPC) is not a "MAC" (sic) emulator, but rather a general PowerPC architecture and motherboard emulator. PearPC presents itself as such. However, CherryOS markets and specifically targets itself at Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple's Mac OS X license agreement specifically states it can only be installed on an Apple-branded computer. Aside from the PearPC issues, CherryOS is a commercial product actively encouraging its users to break Apple's Mac OS X license agreement. And yes, this license agreement is binding: that's why no one makes clones. (And no, Apple "ROMs" are no longer required. Haven't been for ages.)
Funnily enough, Maui X-Stream president Jim Kartes said:
We are building an emulator like they are that uses Mac language. PearPC uses Mac language and next thing you know, they say we are using their code. This is a totally different architecture.
This comment makes no sense. "PearPC uses Mac language" has no meaning, and is, if anything, indicative of the fact that this company does not fundamentally understand the operation of innards of their product, which isn't surprising, since they didn't create it. PearPC is essentially a PowerPC motherboard emulator, which emulates a PowerPC processor, and various necessary elements of a PowerPC motherboard. I think what Kartes is trying to claim is that because PearPC and CherryOS do the same thing, it's no surprise that they'd appear similar. This claim is absurd, because the evidence is overwhelming that CherryOS is using PearPC as the emulation engine. CherryOS is essentially a graphical wrapper for PearPC, which does nothing more than pass instructions to PearPC and execute PearPC within itself. It tries to conceal, rather poorly, that PearPC is what's running underneath. Aside from the proof of very unique shared strings and symbols above, CherryOS also shares PearPC's featureset, or lack thereof in the case of support for sound and networking, and even PearPC's specific bugs. In sum, any claim that CherryOS and PearPC would share unique strings, variable names, and symbols simply because they're both emulators is ridiculous. Also, saying "Mac language" is really irrelevant because, aside from not making sense, PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't have anything to do with the Mac or "Mac language". It's a *PowerPC* emulator. The fact that a Mac operating system runs on it is incidental; PearPC (and CherryOS) doesn't contain or use anything that could be referred to as "Mac language".
eWeek has a general overview of the situation:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775386,00.as p
Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter (of which there are approximately 184884258895036416 different combinations), shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on, not to mention code from other GPL projects:
http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0501.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0503.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0504.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0507.html
You might want to take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), unanimously adopted by UNSEC in November 2002 - including France - just three months before US/UK-led action.
It reiterates that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of previous, binding Chapter VII Security Council resolutions that had already authorized the use of force. So to use your example, "France, et al" had been "letting Iraq off the hook" for the better part of 12 years. The only person "lying" here is you to yourself.
There were, previous to March 2003, HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD unaccounted for, that remain unaccounted for to this day. These were weapons Iraq was already previously known to be in possession of. Further, before 1998 and after 2002, UN inspectors were NEVER - repeat, NEVER - given full and unfettered access to any and all sites and facilities. That alone subverts the very concept of inspections. Not to mention that NO inspectors were in Iraq at all for almost five years.
Of course, to focus in on WMD is really ridiculous, since there are numerous reasons we initiated action in the mideast that are a hell of a lot more important and far-reaching than whether or not Saddam still had WMD.
You should probably read all of 1441, but I'll include the important part here for you:
[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the
How can you reconcile these two sentences, when the security council clearly didn't approve the last Iraq war?
It depends on how much autonomy you assign to the UN.
I should qualify it a bit more and say that I don't think that war is necessarily "legal" or "illegal". It just "is". Calling it an "illegal war" has been a tool of people obviously opposed to it. As some level - and yes, this is egregiously oversimplifying - sovereign nations can wage war with whomever they wish, and talk of "international will" is just a fancy way of saying that others disagree.
I was answering your question regarding who should be the one who "decides" within the framework of the UN. Well, of course it's the Security Council. But if the Security Council isn't going to act on the spirit or letter of its own resolutions, then the Security Council being in the deciding position subverts the purpose of the resolutions.
And further in this vein, you might say, well, doesn't the whole Security Council have to decide to use force? Technically, it already did. Three times. The latest being in November 2002. Sure, they collectively could have hammered out a unified response, and some on the Security Council obviously disagreed with the US's response. But if you want to get into "legality" and semantics, 1441 already authorized any UNSEC member nation to act. Obviously you don't want member nations haphazardly and arbitrarily doing things, but I'd hardly characterize the US action as such. We attempted for months to convince the Security Council of the situation, and informed them with ample time of our feelings.
Aside from all of this, the truth is that, while 1441 authorized any and all UNSEC members to use force to ensure compliance, the US doesn't need UN approval for military action. Nor does anyone else.
Though I am clearly against this war, I just can hope that things turn out how you want them to turn out, however I think basing a war solely on this, how should I call it, hope, ideologic conviction, doesn't seem very convincing to me.
While volumes of writings exist on these and related philosophies, I do believe that typical Western-style democracy - NOT Western "culture" - is a good model for any nation or any people. I am fully cognizant of the fact that it's "not that simple", but I don't just therefore give up and decide we should do nothing, and that sometimes, decisive, overt action is required. I'm not one of these people who thinks everything is hunky-dory in Iraq and everyone will live happily ever after. Far from it. It will take *generations* to affect this change.
But what of some short term turmoil, versus a potential couple of centuries of turmoil and a possible Panislamic empire? Even Senator Kerry got it when he said "they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region's governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia."
For many reasons - our own protection, economic (e.g., oil, energy, etc.) interests, the people of the mideast, the long-term stability of the region - we have initiated this policy. I am aware that many disagree with it. It usually seems to fall along lines of being "proactive" versus "reactive" or diplomatic. Traditional "diplomacy" is what we have to use to get Old Europe to understand what's at stake. Especially for them, geographically. Diplomacy is irrelevant in the context of Iraq, pre-invasion. However, diplomacy may again be effective as nations in the region see that there is action to back up our talk. And at that, action that creates free, pluralistic, if temporarily chaotic, environments.
Xserve shipments soar 119 percent
And on the storage side:
Oracle endorses, uses Xserve RAID (2)
And I can only speak for ourselves, but we're using Xserves in our datacenter, but not for serving Macs or Mac heavy networks: just as general purpose UNIX servers, with very nice administrative capabilities.
I see what you're getting at. I saw what you were getting at when you first asked it.
I'll answer:
Of course it's the UN Security Council that gets to "decide" when and under what conditions to enforce its resolutions. This is implicit in the fact that the Security Council is the entity that initiates the resolutions in the first place.
The point is that the whole Security Council agreed in principle that Iraq was in material breach several times, and again, specifically, in resolution 1441. Nothing substantive - nothing that affected any of the change required by the resolutions - happened for the better part of 12 years.
You can see how someone might say "the UN isn't even enforcing its own resolutions here". They hadn't done it for the last decade, and they showed no interest in doing it in 2002 or early 2003. The UN Security Council was not abiding by the spirit or letter of 678, 687, or 1441, and there was no evidence of any escalating pressure, or any positive movement whatsoever, even WITH the renewed presence of inspectors in Iraq. And yes, it is very important to note that the inspectors never had unfettered access. The whole point of the inspections was so that they would be able to carry out inspections with unfettered access. Any amount of inspections yielding nothing without unfettered access was meaningless: that subverts the whole concept of inspections, which were designed to uncover things that may otherwise be hidden. Thus, an explicit and important need for unfettered access which was NEVER granted.
What's the point of the UN Security Council being the body to "decide" when it acts if it doesn't act on its own resolutions, promises, and assertions?
You're also apparently forgetting that while I believe that the "legality" of the action is not in question, there were other, extremely more important reasons to go into Iraq and institute a democratic government (and yes, this can and does work, by the way; see Germany and Japan for two extreme yet appropriate examples); namely, as a catalyst for positive, democratic change in the mideast as a whole. This may be tumultuous, but free societies, free markets, and, most importantly, a free flow of information, will finally bring the long awaited modernization to the region. And in the process, stamp out fanatical anti-West extremism.
Since we're obviously operating on different philosophies here, there is probably no reason to carry this out any further, though I do appreciate you carrying this out in a civilized manner, even as AC.
Sarcasm aside, I suppose you forget about the 50,000 Iraqis per year - over 600,000 in all - who were estimated to have died by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as a direct result of sanctions. Remember, the only alternative solution offered was the continuance of sanctions and "containment".
Only now has it come to light how unbelievably corrupt the UN management of Oil for Food was, not to mention the literally billions of dollars that French and German contractors netted for OFP contracts administration. A money spigot that turned off, by the way, when the US and UK initiated action in March of 2003.
Sometimes decisive action is more appropriate than years of corruption, which you refer to as "diplomacy". I also find it interesting that you consider waiting for 12 years apparently not long enough to constitute looking for other "alternatives".
First of all, pasting something completely relevant and cogent to this topic was perfectly appropriate. And I understand it perfectly, thank you. It's apparently you who doesn't.
And no, a 1990 resolution does not mean that for all time everyone who feels like it can invade Iraq, claiming Iraq is in breach of a relevant resolution, that's just ridiculous.
So now it fails to be a binding resolution after a period of time? The conditions and specifics of the resolution were still at issue just as much 12 years later: the situation had never been resolved.
You further ignore resolution 1441 (a href=http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm>html), which was adopted by the whole of the Security Council on 8 November 2002.
It says, in part,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions [...]
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions [...]
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, [...]
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991) [...]
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, [...]
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism [...]
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
You should really read the whole thing. It's rather straightforward.
And again, you are totally ignoring the fact the actions were taken, remember, inspectors were on the ground, hadn't found any WMDs and reported that they were making progress.
This is rich. Progress? NEVER were the inspectors, before 1998, or after 2002, allowed the unfettered access to any and all facilities, sites, and records that were required by the resolutions.
NEVER.
The "hadn't found any WMDs" argument is tired and irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that inspectors never, once, had unrestricted access as required. Not finding WMD under ANY conditions other than specified and required by the resolutions is meaningless. To this day, there are HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD known to have been in Iraq's possession that are unaccounted for. It was Iraq's responsibility to either account for them in terms of their location or documented destruction, or to minimally provide unrestricted access to inspectors.
Iraq did neither for over a decade.
I'm astounded by your refusal to admit these facts to yourself, whether or not you agreed with the US action or policy in this area.
There are three kinds of resolutions that the UN can adopt: General Assembly resolutions, and two kinds of Security Council resolutions. All three of these are defined by the UN Charter.
The powers of the UN General Assembly are defined in chapter IV of the Charter, "The General Assembly." Article 14 says,
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
So the General Assembly can adopt resolutions that are essentially recommendations. These resolutions are not binding on the membership, and there is no authority granted in the UN Charter either to the membership or to any agency to enforce them. The most famous General Assembly resolution was 181, the resolution in which the UN proposed its partition plan for Israel and Palestine.
The Security Council has the power to pass two different types of resolution. The first is defined in chapter VI of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes." Article 36 says, in relevant part,
The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
These resolutions are just like General Assembly resolutions: they're not binding, and no authority is granted to anyone to enforce them.
The other type of Security Council resolution is defined by chapter VII of the Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 39 says,
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 41 gives the Council the authority to impose non-military means to resolve threats to peace:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42, the big one, gives the Council the authority to use military force to enforce its resolutions.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
And, finally, Article 43 places on the membership of the UN the obligation to enforce Security Council resolutions when called upon.
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
It's very important to remember that chapter VI and chapter VII are completely separate parts of the Charter. Resolutions adopted under chapter VI can only be dealt with under the terms defined in chapter VI; neither the Council nor the membership has the authority to "promote
I'm afraid it's the current USA administration that is making international law meaningless, not the UN.
I wonder how that follows when it was the UN itself that failed to get Iraq to comply to its own binding, in-force resolutions for 12 years, when its own Charter's declarations actually *compelled* the UN Security Council to act, when instead it stood idly by for over a decade, and sat completely impotent for the 5 years between 1998 and March 2003.
All resolutions regarding Israel were UN General Assembly resolutions, which have no teeth whatsoever. They're symbolic. They're no more meaningful than a city council saying that today is Petting Zoo Day at the local zoo. No UN member nation nor the UN itself has any authority to do anything beyond the simple words of a General Assembly resolution.
UN Security Council resolutions are the only kind that carry an enforcement power behind them. Security Council resolutions, according to the UN charter, carry the weight of enforcement action, including sanctions, blockades, military force, and occupation.
Though, ironically, you made a point: UN Security Council resolutions are of late about as meaningful as the General Assembly resolutions on Israel.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
This makes no sense. Is the submitter saying that somehow, UN mandates or regulation regarding internet access will guarantee internet access in nations whose governments oppose it?
The UN has no autonomous authority, save for what it is granted by member nations.
If anything, the Iraq situation should have taught us that the UN's edicts are meaningless. There were binding security council resolutions not only allowing, but compelling, member nations to act to force Iraq into compliance, and scores of instances of verified, documented, UN-acknowledged material breach of its binding resolutions on the part of Iraq. And still, there was no meaningful action. Some UN member nations ended up having to act on their own. To say nothing of the massive corruption in the UN's management of the Oil for Food Programme that is *still* coming to light.
UN regulation of the internet (save for standards bodies such as the ITU) is the worst think you could possibly wish for if unfettered access to information via the internet is your ultimate goal.
...that the full text of the article was posted the same day the original story was posted.