So when DID the Senate ratify the UN Outer Space Treaty?
"On the 19th of that month the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967."
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this ARTICLE.
That gets rid of the Lunar Embassy's claim on the moon.
Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty:
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.
When people find out it's profitable and there's suddenly a couple dozen of these gangs, it'll be a little more expensive.
Plus there are problems like different people from the same gang getting you multiple times by posing as a bunch of different gangs...
Re:Absolutely not, the UN is a flawed organization
on
Imagine A UN-Run Internet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The UN should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their sovereign member states.
Iraqi Constitution Article 983582: The right of Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction and use them on all Infidel cities shall not be abridged.
You do realize how stupid your suggestion is, I hope?
the developers of Max Payne just didn't try hard enough
Please explain how the developers of Max Payne were supposed to slow down a single character and NOT AFFECT THE OTHERS in a multiplayer game, without the game getting massively out of sync?
We're putting YOUR tax dollars into Halliburton subsidies, instead.
IIRC it's possible to specify that your tax dollars don't get spent on the military - which results in them shifting your money around on paper. Hey, if it makes you feel better...
Nice dodge of the response... how about a "whoops, I was wrong"?
Just like MSNBC still attacks Microsoft and is relatively unbiased towards it, the donation isn't likely to swing NPR into being nice to McDonalds...
According to an article I read, the $200M goes into NPR's contingency fund for when they have a year of bad donations. The fund had $25M or so in it before the donation. Stopping fund raising drives would be silly, 'cause you'd just have to re-implement them in two years, when the $200M would be all spent - which would cause more griping.
You're just bitter that those pansy-ass liberals over at NPR just got a donation as big as Bush's entire re-election fund...:-p
Slashdot Mirror
Neither do iPod batteries.
How many times has a big company done something rational and charitable like that?
It's not charitable. They run an ISP, they'll get more users from it.
The persistent success of this scam tells me there's something very important missing from the curriculum being taught in our schools.
How does one teach stupid people to shoot themselves in the head? They'd probably be too stupid to understand the hints you're giving them...
windows development timeline
Windows 2000: 42 months - a little less than four years
NASA says 9 countries signed the Moon Treaty, but you're correct that the US and Russia did not.
Regardless, the Outer Space treaty covers the Moon in this particular case.
So when DID the Senate ratify the UN Outer Space Treaty?
"On the 19th of that month the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967."
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm
Individuals are bound by the international law of "we'll kill you if you don't obey our rules". :-p
I'm not an international law lawyer, so I'm not sure. I suppose that if you ignore international law, you're not afforded the protections either.
Read the f'ing Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Last time I checked, the US writing and signing a treaty made it a party to that treaty.
He, as a citizen, must follow the laws of this country.
As this country's constitution says treaties have full force of law, he's thus bound by it whether he signs or not.
Article 11.3 of the 1979 Moon Treaty:
Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this ARTICLE.
That gets rid of the Lunar Embassy's claim on the moon.
Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty:
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.
Whoops, turns out there's no loophole!
or how USA doesn't own Kuwait although its troops are protecting the monarchy and the country.
HAHAHAHAHAHAha... oh, wait, you weren't kidding?
Or, they could just quote the UN Treaty banning property ownership in space...
What if you're taking a whitewater rafting trip where the camera has a pretty good chance of getting damaged?
If it stays one gang, sure.
When people find out it's profitable and there's suddenly a couple dozen of these gangs, it'll be a little more expensive.
Plus there are problems like different people from the same gang getting you multiple times by posing as a bunch of different gangs...
It should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The UN should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their sovereign member states.
Iraqi Constitution Article 983582: The right of Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction and use them on all Infidel cities shall not be abridged.
You do realize how stupid your suggestion is, I hope?
Pity it's not usable.
It doesn't need FDA approval.
Yeah, 'cuz... like... iTunes Music Store lets you distribute your paid-for-download songs to everyone without limits, right?
the developers of Max Payne just didn't try hard enough
Please explain how the developers of Max Payne were supposed to slow down a single character and NOT AFFECT THE OTHERS in a multiplayer game, without the game getting massively out of sync?
He uses 802.11zzz.
Fine.
We're putting YOUR tax dollars into Halliburton subsidies, instead.
IIRC it's possible to specify that your tax dollars don't get spent on the military - which results in them shifting your money around on paper. Hey, if it makes you feel better...
Nice dodge of the response... how about a "whoops, I was wrong"?
:-p
Just like MSNBC still attacks Microsoft and is relatively unbiased towards it, the donation isn't likely to swing NPR into being nice to McDonalds...
According to an article I read, the $200M goes into NPR's contingency fund for when they have a year of bad donations. The fund had $25M or so in it before the donation. Stopping fund raising drives would be silly, 'cause you'd just have to re-implement them in two years, when the $200M would be all spent - which would cause more griping.
You're just bitter that those pansy-ass liberals over at NPR just got a donation as big as Bush's entire re-election fund...
Funny - I thought I was talking about total money raised, not average donations.