NationStates Jolt Archive

Because most UN members don't read the forum and just vote blindly.
That's a pretty harsh assessment of your fellow members.

Look at it this way: they're CRPGers, right? So they're mostly science fiction fans in the first place.




p.s. your .sig link isn't a link.

Hah, I can just imagine walking into a board meeting with my nation's top scientists and slapping copies of this proposal before them. And then before they can raise a hand and a voice, I will simply say "HOP TO IT, PEOPLE!" and proceed to watch them look confusedly at one another. Just for a laugh, then I'll say "just kidding" while I slap down proposals these scientists could earn a grant for.

While the technology might be possible, and I don't yet dismiss human ingenuity being able to construct wristband holograms sometime in the very distant future, I am under the impression that NS is a game that functions within our contemporary existence, that is, in congruence with the state of the world as it is today in this new year of 2005. If it is not, then why don't I just write up a proposal grafting the invention of a centralized base for filtering out the "garbage" from the Internet with NO explanation as to how such technology would appear in the first place? And let's remember to thank entertainment sources like Metal Gear Solid for that bright idea (and hey, some of you might like that idea).

But what about the looks when you start passing around the collection plates to the folks that browse these libraries? That'll be a riot!

If you rely on donations, a project this great and idealistic won't have enough bowels to spill when it's gutted and left to decay into a historic landmark...a reminder of a half-assed proposal based off of ideas from a MOVIE. Additionally, if your proposal failed four times before it was queued, and NOW you're considering amending it, why didn't you just amend and expand on it before you submitted it this time? Surely you listened to some of the criticisms it likely received then?

My country sees this as a failure due to lack of resources and possible corruption, and will vote no.

I cannot comprehend this either...written/edited poorly, and makes no sense once thought about.

It is my moral imperative as the leader of Iehewey, to withdraw my vote for this project and to cast my vote against this project.

At first it sounded good, but upon further reflection, I can see this as a debacle. Something like this is needed, but I don't think this is it. What happens if we don't reach the goal for donations? what about the money collected to the point of deciding to cancel the project? etc.etc.etc... Too many unanswered questions.

Besides, aren't most of these places riddled with histories of being sacked eventually? That's a lot of wasted money. Remember the Library of Alexandria? Sacked. Burned to the ground. We don't need to be keeping the world's knowledge in one place.

Let the nations keep their own knowledge. Keep the cultures, the history, the religions, etc. in their respective nations of origin. World stays richer that way.

"There is will be also a new Technology within these Libraries which is called Holographic imaging. "

So you can just pull Star Wars technology out of your ass and make it up as you go along? What are you 13?

Correct your grammer.

this libray would make the internet look like William Hung, a Joke! Its the future!

Uh, hello? Every time a big fancy government decides that it's time to build the next big thing, guess what happens? People out there in the REAL WORLD, find a better way to accomplish much the same thing. It's called a free market. Just let it happen.

If you need an example, take the internet. Started as a method to send email for a couple of guys on a university project. It evolved into what it was because people took their time to see how it was useful to them. Throwing government money at somebody's idea is almost never the best way to accomplish something - it's usually just a waste of money.

This resolution is ridiculous. As has been noted already, the idea of "holographic imaging" is wholly derived from science fiction movies. One cannot simply invent such technologies and magically implement them into a UN resolution.

Are you aware the author of the resolution has realized how utterly impractical this idea is and no longer supports it?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386672

I had to point this out again for those who don't know.

Please, get in there and read this proposal completely. I'm not trying to say that I'm a literary genius but this thing needs to be voted down solely on the merits of it being written so horribly.
I mean it is will be say's not so good a resolution if its put in to like this.

Wat need for this library? How can reading book help plow de fields, harvest de grain? One needs only one book, the holy and true word of da Lord.

I don't think grammar should be solely responsible for voting down this issue, or the fact that we don't have the technology to accomplish this global holographic library. The biggest problem I have with this concept is that can we really trust having all of Human History stored in a computer that could crash leaving us with no records of history except those few books we may have saved. The same thing happened hundreds of years ago in Alexandria. All records of human history were stored in this great library. The library burned to the ground and all but a few records were lost.

Can we really afford to make the same mistake twice?

I propose that we start making a repeal of this resolution. I will start a thread to talk about it.

We need to submit a good list of the arguments preseted in the forum against it. I would even suggest that we have quotes of the various arguments by members.

There are some stupid resolutions up there and we dont need any more.

It seems that the pie-in-the-sky nations of the world would force non-existant technology on the rest of us so that they can indoctrinate our youth.

The vote for currently stands at twice the vote against. I warn you, as the Soverign of Frizale, I will block access to any such library with military force if needed. The youth of Frizale do not need access to such information corrupting them, nor should such a library be a drain on the nation's coffers.

We have libraries, with what works are considered acceptable to our culture. Do not impose your culture on us.

I haven't decided for or against yet, but I would think that we would want to refrain from puttting all human knowledge in, as some of it may still be classified, or too simple to have a back street deviant build a pocket fusion device, just because we happened to put the plans in this library.

From The Desk of Queen Wyntarra Siddiah:

We are all for the total education of our people, but at what cost to them and our government? The proposed idea of donations could NOT in any way be enough to be able to mass produce holographic wrist bands for each and every citizen not within easy access of one of the libraries. Not all nations even have the capabilities for holographic technology so how do we get it? ~~looks around~~ Perhaps the air is thin here, but it is NOT that thin. Our nation cannot afford the mass production of these items. Most nations do have internet connectivity which IS a form of a global library. A person can have a modem device and type in anything into a search engine and then within seconds are given hundreds to thousands of choices to look at to find the information they required. We would also have to say that internet connection would be far less costly.The Kingdom votes against this resolution..

~~thinks for a second, then puts her pen back to the paper~~

The Kingdom will, however, implement something called "internet cafes" in every city and at least 3 "internet terminals" in every village with regulated usage time per person free of cost to the people. Our people's education is very dear to us and we would not like to let our people suffer intellectually.

~~places her pen down and steps away from her desk~~

I'm new here so i didn't realize that if you don't like the way a vote turns out you can throw a tantrum to try and get your own way. This is exactly what Frizale is doing by threatening to use military force to block access to the global libraries. Why not just refuse to have a library in YOUR region and ban the wrist bands to the public of YOUR region.

I'm new here so i didn't realize that if you don't like the way a vote turns out you can throw a tantrum to try and get your own way. This is exactly what Frizale is doing by threatening to use military force to block access to the global libraries. Why not just refuse to have a library in YOUR region and ban the wrist bands to the public of YOUR region.

What wristbands? What Library? My understanding is that we'll be long dead before this technology is ever invented and funds raised to support it. A definate vote against.

On a similar note, as you can now propose things that are currently impossible to achieve, I plan to put forth a resolution curing cancer, any supporters?

1st: Considering how those wristbands are impossible, I don't think that will be a problem.

2nd: I think that's what he meant, and it's just a typo

3rd: As you are new here, I will let you know: Don't use sarcasm, it contains very little useful information and generally just makes people want to choke you to death. These arguements can get pretty heated.

This proposal is highly unrealistic. This "holographic imaging" is based on no reality and thus forces me to vote against it. It may fool those who just skim it, but upon any anylization, this is impossible to cary out.

This has also affected my region's politics. My region is very inactive when it comes to the UN and I was the only other UN member left to endorse Independent Hitmen, my region's delegate for 59 days. After he voted for this, I withdrew my endorsement and now my region has no delegate.

The lemming effect is what's driving this proposal. People see Global Libary and thing "GREAT IDEA!" without really looking at it. I've had constituents ask me why I voted against it and change their minds when I explained to them WHY.

Here is what I have to say. If WE all come together we can change it once it passes and there will be no problem.

Do you have any idea what effects that this proposal would have on the printing industry? This idea wont alow my country's economy to benefit or anyones economy to benefit. It sounds good to the imagination but is impracticle.

Someone need to start a coordinated campaign against this global library proposal! The internet IS our global library.

Down with the global library resolution!

4 points why I vote against:

1) makes tax go up yet again
over the last two weeks my taxes have gone up by over 10% just because of some ridiculous UN resolutions

2) holographic imaging technology ?
3) people get a holographic wrist band ?
c'mon, holographic shyte is bull shyte

4) i dont think i want to share all my knowledge with every idiot in another country: what if they run off and put a patent on a cure against some disease found by one of our dr's ? i will share what I want to share. if I don't want others to know you wont get to read it in your fancy library

Great agnostica: If WE all come together we can change it once it passes and there will be no problem

Just checking, do you mean we could get this resolution repealed once it's through? Just making sure.

because other than that there isn't a way to change it once it's through, or maybe I'm just unaware of an alternative method

I'm all for this resolution in spirit, an organized and accessible format for sharing information, and don't say that the internet is the ultimate form of this, is a great idea. A global library with access to all scholarly documents using a uniform system would be an improvement upon the internet, I think anyways.
Aside from the ambitous holographic idea, which smacks of Orlando Jones in the unfortunate film version of HG Wells' "The Time Machine" by the way, sharing information and educating is worth our economies taking a hit.

Has anyone ever thought of TGing the influencial delegates (i.e. those that have lots of endorsements) who voted for this and pointing out that the author of this proposal has admitted its flaws and that it should be voted down to be re-worked? (I don't have time to hit them all by myself)

Wish people would read the forum just a bit before blindly casting a vote.

The 7 Points of the Global Library that will be changed.

1. The holographic imaging will be thrown out of the Resolution.

2. There will be NO buildings will be built in any nation.

3. Instead of holographic imaging technology there will be Touch Screen Flat Panels that are portable. They are about eight inches in length, ten point five inches in width, and three inches in density. They will connect to a network without advertisements and anything else that is on it except all human knowledge.

4. All books will be put in the network a year after they are published.

5. When we start putting information into the system we will pick one newspaper from each city that has a population of 800,000 into the network randomly. Which means if there are one more newspapers per city we will randomly pick one?

6. This program will be funded by all nations. Which means if you voted no for the Global Library or didn’t vote at all you must still fund it. Plus since the reforms it will cost less. A lot less then what was first accepted…

7. Finally this Library will not be regulated. This means all books other publish works will be accepted into the Library.

Just checking, do you mean we could get this resolution repealed once it's through? Just making sure.

because other than that there isn't a way to change it once it's through, or maybe I'm just unaware of an alternative method

That's my experience as well. Game mechanics are situated to allow a "change" only through first repealling the original legislation and then submitting the corrected legislation.

3. Instead of holographic imaging technology there will be Touch Screen Flat Panels that are portable. They are about eight inches in length, ten point five inches in width, and three inches in density.
To fit with passed resolution, put it in centimetres. Given that you put 'about 8 inches', I'll approximate the measurements as well.

20.5 cm long, 26.5 com wide, 7.5 cm thick (I presume that's what you meant when you put 'density').

But why don't you just use standard RL technology, that is, programs that can be installed on normal computers which can be used by anyone who is able to use a keyboard. Obviously, you would need to have special facilities for the blind/manually impaired (how's that for political correctness?).

To fit with passed resolution, put it in centimetres. Given that you put 'about 8 inches', I'll approximate the measurements as well.

20.5 cm long, 26.5 com wide, 7.5 cm thick (I presume that's what you meant when you put 'density').

But why don't you just use standard RL technology, that is, programs that can be installed on normal computers which can be used by anyone who is able to use a keyboard. Obviously, you would need to have special facilities for the blind/manually impaired (how's that for political correctness?).

Well you can't use a standard computer. This screen will be specifically made for the network. Ofcourse you can connect it to a printer or a scanner to compare documents or any other piece of paper. Plus the there will be so much data a normal computer can't hold it.

Let's nitpick.

"This Resolution hereby say’s that we instate a system to put all human knowledge in to it. "

Human knowledge? Would that include the basic laws of grammar?
Badum bum ching!
But seriously, it makes a mockery of the United Nations to put up compositions of such miserable wording. Especially when the subject is a global library.

"It will be called the Global Library. It will be Free and it will be accessible to all. The information that will be within the libraries are the News, All Books, Medicine Reports, Magazines, Laws of Every Nation and their Local Governments, and finally Biographies on some the most influential people during human history."

There are 12 words here that do not need to be capitalized. Can you find them all? Also, this statement immediately negates the opening statement, which talks about a repository for "all human knowledge". By categorizing it in this manner, you limit the library pathetically. What about music, film, art? What about digital information? Why only the laws of NationStates - what about culture, religion, hot eating spots? I can see how "all books" will cover a good portion of what we're looking for, but this is also ambiguous and therefore dangerous. Do you mean ALL books? That'll take time to find. You specify in areas that are useless, and remain vague with what we need to know.

"Now these libraries will be located in all member nations in their most popular cities."

And now it's libraries, plural. How are they connected? Do they all have copies of the same books? Is there still a central "Global Library", or is that just a phrase? Your budget begins to spiral out of control.

"There is will be also a new Technology within these Libraries which is called Holographic imaging. A holographic image will appear of a person and it will help you find what you are looking for and once you do it will turn into what you want you’re self. "

We don't have the technology, it costs money to develop, it's a farfetched and stupid idea. The final sentence is the part that catches me, because it makes no sense.

"For the people that live far from the library they will be getting another new technology that is called the Holographic wrist band. It is the same thing as in the library except it is for on the go. All they have to do is come once and get one or call and ask for it to be shipped (free of charge) to them. "

NOW things get ugly. Again you are ambiguous and the grammar defeats all logic. Are we talking about shipping the watches or the books to them? What does the wristwatch do? Does it know who you are? Does it have your personal information so it can send you books? Does it STORE your personal information? Could it be a security risk? You need to pay for all this stuff, what's the guarantee the telemarketers don't provide some useful donations? My nation has a population of 876 million and they like books. Can you provide 876 million watches? Can you provide 8 million? One things for sure, there's no POSSIBLE way you can provide enough for the people of each nation. Unless you have a really excellent source of funding.

"Finally the cost of this. We will pay for this by donation. There will a goal to be set and once we reach it we can start building."

See you in never.

There are three central problems with this resolution that make it worthless:
A) The wording is not only disgustingly hard to interpret, it is obscenely ambigous and therefore open to corruption through a thousand different means. It does too little, or it does too much, but you can't vote on it because you don't know what it does.
B) It functions on mindless idealism alone, dreams of holographic technology and nations connected by wristwatches, without pausing to consider the implications on an economic, social, or political perspective.
C) It is expensive to the OBSCENE, and will never get the funds it needs. The mere cost of upkeep rules out donations as a viable source. You have to pay for the books, the buildings, the staff (holographic screens don't replace workers, especially with fledgeling technology - technicians are expensive), the power supply, and some form of enforcement on ensuring the books checked out return to the library. If they can indeed be checked out. If the books are VIRTUAL as one misworded sentence might suggest, then you have an even bigger issue - the fact that the library is obsolete before it even begins due to this little thing called the internet. There are a dozen different alternatives far better than such a resolution, and if pressed I'll work to put one in play myself.

Please vote against this ridiculously obscure and poorly worded resolution - if you don't vote because it's hopeless, that makes it hopeless.

This is the opinion of my region "Equilism" for which i am UN Delegate:

UN Proposal: GLOBAL LIBRARY

QUOTE
The Global Library

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Great Agnostica

Description: This Resolution hereby say’s that we instate a system to put all human knowledge in to it. It will be called the Global Library. It will be Free and it will be accessible to all. The information that will be within the libraries are the News, All Books, Medicine Reports, Magazines, Laws of Every Nation and their Local Governments, and finally Biographies on some the most influential people during human history.

Now these libraries will be located in all member nations in their most popular cities. There is will be also a new Technology within these Libraries which is called Holographic imaging. A holographic image will appear of a person and it will help you find what you are looking for and once you do it will turn into what you want you’re self.

For the people that live far from the library they will be getting another new technology that is called the Holographic wrist band. It is the same thing as in the library except it is for on the go. All they have to do is come once and get one or call and ask for it to be shipped (free of charge) to them.

Finally the cost of this. We will pay for this by donation. There will a goal to be set and once we reach it we can start building.



Equilism Agrees: NO! to proposed 'Global Library'

Equilism regional members rapidly reached a unanimous decision AGAINST the current proposed "Global Library". Poll commentary pointing out flaws inherent in the proposal include:

QUOTE
Resolution hereby say’s that we instate a system to put all human knowledge in to it. It will be called the Global Library. It will be Free and it will be accessible to all. The information that will be within the libraries are the News, All Books, Medicine Reports, Magazines, Laws of Every Nation and their Local Governments, and finally Biographies on some the most influential people during human history


This is already in place, free of charge, and available to anyone in a public library or in the privacy of their own home. It is called THE INTERNET. More specifically, there are already tools available via the internet that allow efficient and comprehensive access to all the information listed above. Do we really need the UN charging us for a service that is already free?

QUOTE
a new Technology within these Libraries which is called Holographic imaging. A holographic image will appear of a person and it will help you find what you are looking for and once you do it will turn into what you want you’re self.


QUOTE
For the people that live far from the library they will be getting another new technology that is called the Holographic wrist band. It is the same thing as in the library except it is for on the go.


Holographics? This is not Star Trek NS. Not only are the details not outlined (as if they could be), we feel that it is ridiculous to make a proposal that includes the use of technological applications that have yet to be developed, and as applicable in the description above are patently ridiculous. People that live 'far from the library' in need of information can use THE INTERNET! Holographic technology 'for on the go'? How about a laptop? Text messaging?

And finally..

QUOTE
All they have to do is come once and get one or call and ask for it to be shipped (free of charge) to them.

Finally the cost of this. We will pay for this by donation. There will a goal to be set and once we reach it we can start building.


An admirable point. But again we stress that THE INTERNET is already widely available for free access, and regardless of the 'free' price tag that goes along with this proposal, there is going to be widespread annoyance if this passes and the UN takes 'donations' from our respective economies.

I wouldn't really consider transfer rates and technological difficulties to be much of an issue with this. Think about it. UN data is transferred in between 122 thousand nations including 37 thousand UN members constantly. <OCC: The next premise is based on the assumtion that NS is a galactic/universal setting> Thus we obviously have defeated the speed of light, an obvious advance beyond standard technological prowess. Just an observation.
Note: I still believe the resolution should be re-written (not scrapped).

As a member of the old UN vanguard, and author of UN Resolution #57 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=56), allow me to poke my head in and say this resolution is a chupacabra in textual format. It sucks... I'd be more eloquent but there's no point. However, I'll also add that it's heartwarming to see that people never make it past the first paragraph of a resolution before voting yes to provide the world with OMFG TEH UBAR ARTIEFISHUL ENTELLEGENTS HOLLOWGRAFFIC RISTBANZ WOT KNOEZ ALLL¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡111 shiftone.

God, resolutions like these make this organization such a joke. Thanks for all the free stat boosts however. *gobbles up the Political Freedoms and goes on his merry way*

:confused: .......................... :sniper: <--- Galdago
^typical UN member

As a member of the old UN vanguard, and author of UN Resolution #57 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=56), allow me to poke my head in and say this resolution is a chupacabra in textual format. It sucks... I'd be more eloquent but there's no point. However, I'll also add that it's heartwarming to see that people never make it past the first paragraph of a resolution before voting yes to provide the world with OMFG TEH UBAR ARTIEFISHUL ENTELLEGENTS HOLLOWGRAFFIC RISTBANZ WOT KNOEZ ALLL¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡111 shiftone.

God, resolutions like these make this organization such a joke. Thanks for all the free stat boosts however. *gobbles up the Political Freedoms and goes on his merry way*

:confused: .......................... :sniper: <--- Galdago
^typical UN member

I'm glad we have a friendly neighborhood UN Vanguard to clear these things up for us.

We have been trying to send this message but have been encountering some technical difficulty, sorry if it duplicates in any way:

Let me speak frankly. I loathe every moment I have to spend talking about this issue. As a member of my nations foreign affairs department (our department runs with a very small number of people for such a large country), I find myself under extreme stress trying to contact nations and request them to reconsider their vote. There are so many nations there and we are running out of time.
This proposal is proposterous and banal. I cannot believe that 144 delegates approved it in the first place. I cannot believe that so many countries are voting for it. The amount of money such a program would take is simply astronomical. Numerous nations have calculated and detailed their aproximations of the costs. If these numbers are not correct then why can't one of the supporters of this argument give me some sort of reasonable explanation as to why they think it could work. I cannot fathom this.
To be brutally honest.... this could be the resolution that would see the anihilation of world hunger, and I still wouldn't support it if it was written so poorly.
I used to be a lawyer, and I know what people like me do to legislation like this!

I urge all of you thinking people to help telegram as many nations as you can. I think it has gone to far to rely upon the large delegates only, many of them only vote the way their members vote. We need to start travelling to various regions and messaging individuals. We don't need to message everyone, just about 5,000! Lets defeat this and then get on to some real business.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Significant


??
How does this increase democracy? Espesially in a signifigant manner?

If anything this would increase the revenues of the companies making the holographic receivers, but that would be all. Since all this would be based on donations (which would be rare in most nations), this would be a service for the rich only. It would be more likely to reduce the democracy than anything else...

Gross Norwegen has no, absolutely NO, interest in sharing information just to please the naive and compulsive.

At any time did the delegate sit down and think about the implications?

Information is property. People own the right to this information, have gathered it or created it at their own expence. Now we just take it and dole it out with no compensation? I think not. And if there is to be compensation, then tell me, have you any idea what it would cost? I think not. The figures are astronomical if you intend not to rob people. Vote no to the expropriation of property!

6. This program will be funded by all nations. Which means if you voted no for the Global Library or didn’t vote at all you must still fund it. Plus since the reforms it will cost less. A lot less then what was first accepted…
This might go against Resolution 4. "The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose." But it is up to your interpretation.

I'm glad we have a friendly neighborhood UN Vanguard to clear these things up for us.

Usually friendly but as usual distressed by how these resolutions manage to make quorum much less get a majority of the vote. It's the reason I've been unable to drag my carcass back to the UN forums any more, the only forum on NS I ever frequented. Tending to shy away nowadays.

My biggest problem with this proposal is the hologram idea. The logistics and expense do not work. I think it would be much better to have a central library in the major city of the host nation's choice. And then they can follow whatever organization system they choose after that. Along with this an online service where they can read online books or sign up to have books mailed to them, then they can return then via mail. This initial infrastructure would be easy to get in place and up and running, and faster. Once this is done then begin whatever crazy ideas for holograms you have.

I think at the very least you should look at the dossier of the nation that makes these propositions.

I found two things i wanted to share quite quickly with little effort.

Economy:
Imploded

The average income tax rate is 100%.

Two stats from the Great Agnostica.

Stop writing anything, it's a waste of our time.

oh yes, lets build global librarys where children can be taught by holograms... :rolleyes:

when you are ready to come back to reality maybe my nation will be ready to re-examin it's membership (or lack thereof) in the U.N.

I think at the very least you should look at the dossier of the nation that makes these propositions.

I found two things i wanted to share quite quickly with little effort.

Economy:
Imploded

The average income tax rate is 100%.

Two stats from the Great Agnostica.

Stop writing anything, it's a waste of our time.

Why don't you mention the two good stats. I have very good for Civil rights and Excelllent for Political freedoms. To me they are more important then money. I believe that if you raise taxes you give more money to the government to help you.

*Is mightily relieved that her view of this proposal is shared*

Down with holographic libraries :gundge: (And I never thought I'd have to say that, in a sane way...)

I shall message away.

(Oh! And since you are reading this post, please consider my repeal of UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia, a similarly badly written resolution... the original - not my repeal! Search for : euthanasia in proposals, and t'will be found)

Why don't you mention the two good stats. I have very good for Civil rights and Excelllent for Political freedoms. To me they are more important then money. I believe that if you raise taxes you give more money to the government to help you.

Well if nobody has an income they're gonna need an awful lot of government help. I'm simply for less government involvement and with that kind of tax rate basically you can't buy food or anything else without government funds.

It's my opinion that people that can't run their own nation shouldn't be proposing a damn thing to anyone else.

This truly is a wonderful idea, and Great Agnostica really does have a fantasic imagination. This being the problem, the proposition is fantasy. On paper supplying total information to everyone for free is a very good idea, and perhaps in future generations we can build towards this.

The ideas proposed are not practical and I join other sensible nations in rejecting this proposal. In the sad event that success becomes inevitable i will also be passing on my Delegate status and leaving the UN. I will return if and whenn some sensible and thoughtout propositions come to light.

Please think carefully about this proposal before you vote for it.

4. All books will be put in the network a year after they are published.

"Dear Stephen King,

FU.

Sincerely,
Great Agnostica"

Look, the internet is good enough. The cost of having these silly LCD wristbands for every single individual in NationStates (remembering that there are very, very many nations which have populations that are on the same order of magnitude as the entire real-life planet), without resorting to advertising, is insane. Much, much worthier things couold be done with the collasal amount of infrastructure and money that will go into this.

Don't you people read my posts? Escpecially the changes I would make.

Don't you people read my posts? Escpecially the changes I would make.

That's somewhat of an unwarranted blanket statement. While there do seem to be a lot of people who are still complaining against your previous version (which is still relevant since, lest we forget, THAT IS THE ONE THAT IS ABOUT TO PASS), there are also some that are complaining against this new version. And a lot of the complaints are still as valid as ever - this new version still screws over authors and the publishing industry, still doesn't provide a reason why this is a better idea than the internet, and more than ever screws over everyone's economy.

I feel the the new version is very good. The reason why it is better then the internet is that it is free, content not regulated, and there will be no advertisements.

The authors do not get screwed over we but in thier books a year after they are published and once we put them in there and they have a problem with it we will give the books another year.

About the funding part well all I say is that majority rules. If majority says they want the program that means every one pays for it unless you leave the UN. That's democracy people.

Holgram watches? Hell, lets just invent fuzzy pink smart pills, then we won't need the Global Library.

Holgram watches? Hell, lets just invent fuzzy pink smart pills, then we won't need the Global Library.

Tried that once. The guy tried to learn as much as he could. Sadly, the more he learned the farther into despair he sunk as the bigger picture of how badly things are screwed up in the universe. Eventually his own thirst for knowledge drove him mad. He then hijacked a train, took it on a joyride, and using high speeds combined with an incline in the tracks managed to get the train to jump the tracks and soar through the air, where it landed on an elementary school and killed the 30 teachers and 6 students inside.

Now you know why DLE doesn't have trains.

Maybe he became sooo smart that he forsaw that those 30 kids were going to create the worst Nation ever.....the teacher was an innocent bystander.

The whole hologram idea was a bit off topic, but otherwise its a good idea.

Just because you eliminated the holograms in favor of LCD's, that still leaves the matter of storage of this massive amount of informations.


About the funding part well all I say is that majority rules. If majority says they want the program that means every one pays for it unless you leave the UN. That's democracy people.

Not true. In the RL UN, the US (for example) disagrees with several UN programs, and refuses to fund them.

About the funding part well all I say is that majority rules. If majority says they want the program that means every one pays for it unless you leave the UN. That's democracy people.

The problem for you is that the version which we are voting on only specifies that the project will be paid for by "donations."

I interpret "donations" as voluntary contributions by individuals and NOT mandatory funding provided by taxes.

What you said in your statement above and what the amendment actually requires are two different things.

This library will not be built. The funding will never be there.

The 7 Points of the Global Library that will be changed.


7. Finally this Library will not be regulated. This means all books other publish works will be accepted into the Library.

WOW, free porn!! Great idea. The kids will LOVE that!

WOW, free porn!! Great idea. The kids will LOVE that!

There will be parental locks of course.

I advise that whoever is backing Great Agnostica pull their support
so maybe we can get a delegate that doesn't contradict
themselves and then say...well ya of course, that's
what i meant.

I recommed that whoever is backing Great Agnostica pull their support so maybe we can get a delegate that doesn't contradict themselves and then
say...well ya of course, that's what i meant.

By any chance do you actually think I care about what you say or do, because if you do you are sadly mistaken.

No i don't.

I also don't mean to be cruel but i'm a bit
upset that you are taking an actual good
idea and butchering it.

p.s. i'm probably still sadly mistaken :)

I'm sorry but I have to just put a cork in this stupid idea once and for all. I thought you had realized how bad of an idea this was a long time ago. The funding for it is literally impossible.

The internet is probably about the size of the network you want to re-create. The average CA-3 Speed server with enough bandwidth to hold let's say, an MMORPG costs about 80,000 dollars a month. So you're going to need about 1,000 of those (probably a lot more) just for server space to be able to create a network that everyone with either wrist watches, or digital screens or whatever new technology you made up at the moment to acces.. Now you need storage room for all the known written documents ever recorded in the entire history of the world. Let's assume that you'll need only a few million tetrabytes for this kind of storage, which probably cost you only a few million dollars becuase a government-related operation would probably pay a little less to the corporations as long as they put their name on it. Then you need to higher a few hundred thousand programmers/technicians/electricians/engineers etc., which might cost only a few billion dollars assuming this project is realistic and will probably take a few years to even get moving and you pay the average guy on this job around 60k a year (probably more because you're not getting idiots on this job, you want people that know what they're doing, and they charge more) and total that's a few billion dollars right there. Now you need landspace, construction, contractors, etc. to actually build the buildings and offices where this whole thing will actually be able to run, assuming it's only one big place in one big location the buying of the land and the construction should take only another few billion dollars being realistic about the size of this thing. Now you need to higher a staff to regulate it (how do you think the internet gets pop-ups, from evil laughing clowns?) to stop all the hackers/companies putting viruses and spyware into the service ruining the entire network. That might only be another million or so a year. Remember, it's all free. I probably haven't even scratched the surface on what this will cost. I can't believe nobody realizes how stupid this project is. This isn't going to be a dent in someone's taxes, this is litterally IMPOSSIBLE! The money for doing this doesn't exist and no one in the world would waste their time or money re-created the already existant internet.

This really needs to be made practical by the following steps:

-Regulate what is submitted for entry. No hateful messages, pornography, ads, etc. A special UN council would be created to oversee the project.

-Adopt an approach similar to that of the existing Internet: Private companies provide access to the library over a network, and some governments may choose to subsidize those less fortunate, in order to provide equal access. Privatizing the system could well open up a branch of the telecommunications industry. Jobs for skilled workers could be opened for the maintenance of the network.

-As an alternative, instead of an internet-like system, we could implement a system in which a citizen requests a book/document (e.g. Shakespeare's Othello), and have it mailed to him on compact disk, freeing up the need for expensive networks and servers.

*Side Note* I am sure that a lot of these people who are against the library are also leaders of totalitarian police states.

No i don't.

I also don't mean to be cruel but i'm a bit
upset that you are taking an actual good
idea and butchering it.

p.s. i'm probably still sadly mistaken :)

Well come up with a better Idea. Atleast I tried to enact it. No one else was.

Well come up with a better Idea. Atleast I tried to enact it. No one else was.

*clapping* And for that you have my government's respect. :) I've only been observing these debates, because my government sometimes wishes to defer to other nations whom are much more qualified than my government on certain issues, but the Confederated City States of Mikitivity always appreciates honest and sincere efforts to improve the world.

*clapping* And for that you have my government's respect. :) I've only been observing these debates, because my government sometimes wishes to defer to other nations whom are much more qualified than my government on certain issues, but the Confederated City States of Mikitivity always appreciates honest and sincere efforts to improve the world.
Thanks

But to extend what I said. I am getting critized by a lot of people that say it's a great idea but.....but nothing. I don't see you guys bringing up the idea at all. I atleast tried. The people that voted for it see that it is a good idea, not on how it is stated but the idea itself. Now if you could only donate to it I am sure they would all fund it. But if it passes with current UN regulations everyone will pay for no matter if they agree with it or not. That is really what I feel about this whole thing.

Thanks

But to extend what I said. I am getting critized by a lot of people that say it's a great idea but.....but nothing. I don't see you guys bringing up the idea at all. I atleast tried. The people that voted for it see that it is a good idea, not on how it is stated but the idea itself. Now if you could only donate to it I am sure they would all fund it. But if it passes with current UN regulations everyone will pay for no matter if they agree with it or not. That is really what I feel about this whole thing.

Out of Character:

:) Don't worry about me -- you earned my respect long ago! Having had a host of resolutions hit the floor myself, I know exactly what you are going through. Most people are pretty petty and insecure and will find any reason to take a disagreement about a resolution and turn it into a personal attack. Ignore them. They have a host of real-life problems, and their problems have nothing to do with you or me. And we'll go crazy if we ever start to really let ourselves think that we are the source of those problems! :)

You might be getting negative comments, but don't focus on them. Read them, and when they have a point listen. But don't focus on them.

Now I've not tried to make suggestions for how to change the text, for a number of reasons:

1) IRL there are a host of topics that I do have real world experience with, but sadly what you are trying to do here is something that any computer science or library science student can understand much better than me.

2) Sometimes I need to back off an allow other nations a chance to play. Believe it or not, there are resolutions where I do not really join in the official debate (I also did nothing with respect to the Support Hemp Production resolution last week either).

3) I believe that if you don't have something positive to say, then don't say anything. All the negative attitudes coming from other players aren't helping matters.

4) I've been working hard in the game to encourage more nations to take an interest in humanitarian aid via the International Red Cross. It is the difference between wanting to explore the world around me vs. wanting to escape it. (Not that I don't have other outlets for escapism ... I do, I run to a comic store every week and see what Captain America and Iron Man are up to next.) :) And as of this week, my nation has been helping the Ottoman Empire in light of an earthquak in the International Incidents forum.

5) This might sound strange, but I also think the best learning experience is when the amount of help somebody gets is "measured" and handed out in small doses.

In any event, I just want to say again, that I respect what you are doing here, and believe me, as much as it might not seem like it, you are doing the right thing. You are trying and being honest, and I really want you to stick around and not let these negative comments bug you.

Description: This Resolution hereby say’s that we instate a system to put all human knowledge in to it. It will be called the Global Library. It will be Free and it will be accessible to all.

Sounds very much like what people say about the Internet. Why not try and get everyone access to that instead?

The information that will be within the libraries are the News, All Books, Medicine Reports, Magazines, Laws of Every Nation and their Local Governments, and finally Biographies on some the most influential people during human history.

Sounds incomplete to me...

A holographic image will appear of a person and it will help you find what you are looking for and once you do it will turn into what you want you’re self.

Such technology isn't readily available enough, if available at all, to be deployed so casually. Considering the cost of your average minimum-wage library receptionist, it seems totally unnecessary. Sounds like something out of a science-fiction movie to me.

For the people that live far from the library they will be getting another new technology that is called the Holographic wrist band. It is the same thing as in the library except it is for on the go. All they have to do is come once and get one or call and ask for it to be shipped (free of charge) to them.

Now that technology definitely doesn't exist. To develop, mass produce and then give away free of charge would cost an unnecessarily enormous sum of money. Then there are issues such as: HOW is it connected to the library 24/7? Using the same technology as a mobile phone? How exactly are you going to send data so vast so quickly using the technology we have at the moment?

Finally the cost of this. We will pay for this by donation. There will a goal to be set and once we reach it we can start building.

Good good. By the time we have gathered enough to fund this, then, the technologies will have been invented already and will already be in common use by everyone.



Global libraries are a great idea. Mattikistan has public libraries of its own, all over. The core idea has my full support; books for all! Unfortunately you've gone a little overboard with the sci-fi technologies, and it's this reason and this reason alone that I can't vote in favour of it (and you missed a few subjects off your list -- if you're going to be specific, cover everything) -- inappropriate use of funding which could be spent on far, far, far more important programs such as healthcare. And that's assuming smaller, less economically developed nations could even afford it in the first place, which I doubt -- I doubt even this nation could afford that plan.

Instead of holograms, we could use people? And instead of wrist-mounted holographic emitters, we could create low-fi websites for mobile phones and PDAs to access? And a main website to access normally? These technologies actually exist, and would cost a fraction (a very small fraction) of the price. I'm still not going to give away mobile phones or PDAs any more than I would holographic wrist-straps though. Far too expensive for what they are. If people want to get to the library, your public transport system should be developed enough so that they can get to the library. Stick with books!

Now I am not sure weither this matter has been brought up in previous accounts or not. but if we were to build this "Global Library" and used these "Holograms" you would be putting a lot of people out of work. Sure constructers, and programmers would rise in amounts, but what of librarians? Surely you are not expecting them to go back to school, spending more money on an education, and then try to start a new career. I'm afraid that your proposal does not account for this increase in unemployment. You might want to think about the negatives along with the positives. Though focusing soley on negatives can be a bad thing, proposing an elimination to them wouldn't hurt.

By any chance do you actually think I care about what you say or do, because if you do you are sadly mistaken.
If your initial resolution was any indicator, I'd have to say no.

United Nations Homepage (http://www.un.org)

Do research. Find topics conerning the real world UN. Research past resolutions. Find ways that they were addressed. Write something more interesting. Then not only will you care; so will we.

This is a horribly thought out piece of legislation. Who decides what biographies are included? And what versions? Kim Jong Il is still alive according to the North Koreans. Hitler's biography written by Israel would be much different than that written by Germany. I don't want the citizens of my country reading propaganda from third world nations.

Alexander Cottingham
Auburn Uni

This is a horribly thought out piece of legislation. Who decides what biographies are included? And what versions? Kim Jong Il is still alive according to the North Koreans. Hitler's biography written by Israel would be much different than that written by Germany. I don't want the citizens of my country reading propaganda from third world nations.

Alexander Cottingham
Auburn Uni

Here is something to consider ... how does the UN Library of Congress decide what to archive and what to not archive?

I'm serious. If we can look at what a real world library does, then we can adjust that decision making process as we see fit.

(Developing questions is easy, finding answers to your own questions is hard ... but it is perhaps the most important step of becoming a problem solver and politician.) :)

What happened to the "Repeal the Global Library" thread? This thread was created by Great Agnostica to gather ideas for a new global library resolution after repealing the current one. Nargopia researched and provided new ideas for the new resolution, ideas that Great Agnostica seemed to support in part. However, I look now and see that the thread is gone. Not only this, but Great Agnostica has posted his new ideas for the resolution without informing this gathered body about Nargopia's contributions! I fervently request an explanation for what is going on.

This proposal is-
a.) Very badly written (from a lignuistic perspective)
b.) Ridiculous, as where are we going to get private donations to build this massive thing is every UN nation? Oh yes, and the handy little holographic imaging and wristband thatare going to suddenly be invented. How convenient... and practically impossible!

Our nation did not cast a vote on this, as we could not bring ourselves to take the proposal seriously. A nice concept, but the reccomended implementation is laughable at best. Please, think proposals through properly before submitting, please?

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

This really needs to be made practical by the following steps:

-Regulate what is submitted for entry. No hateful messages, pornography, ads, etc. A special UN council would be created to oversee the project.

-Adopt an approach similar to that of the existing Internet: Private companies provide access to the library over a network, and some governments may choose to subsidize those less fortunate, in order to provide equal access. Privatizing the system could well open up a branch of the telecommunications industry. Jobs for skilled workers could be opened for the maintenance of the network.

-As an alternative, instead of an internet-like system, we could implement a system in which a citizen requests a book/document (e.g. Shakespeare's Othello), and have it mailed to him on compact disk, freeing up the need for expensive networks and servers.

*Side Note* I am sure that a lot of these people who are against the library are also leaders of totalitarian police states.

Interesting that in the same arguement this leader chose both positions. Regulate content? What is art, and what is pornography? Where do you draw the line? The only place that draws the line in a reasonable location are the totalitarian police states.

Also, you must realize that the number of skilled workers employed would not offset the number of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled labor that the publishing industry would lose.

Not to mention that this resolution is outside the scope and jurisdiction of the UN. That's what it really boils down to. This proposal cannot be carried out or enforced by the UN. The techonologies do not exist, donations will be scarce if they come in at all.

However, storage space is not the problem people think it is. Our leader has a single computer with 280Gb of storage space, which holds all government documents easily, and in a searchable database. Text is small, my esteemed friends.

One final note. Several posts have alluded to the UN being a democracy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The UN is a representative system most similiar to a republic or confederation.

Thanks

But to extend what I said. I am getting critized by a lot of people that say it's a great idea but.....but nothing. I don't see you guys bringing up the idea at all. I atleast tried. The people that voted for it see that it is a good idea, not on how it is stated but the idea itself. Now if you could only donate to it I am sure they would all fund it. But if it passes with current UN regulations everyone will pay for no matter if they agree with it or not. That is really what I feel about this whole thing.

It's not a great idea. Grammar aside (not a valid attack point for any idea), technology aside, a central repository of all human knowledge could fall victim to tampering, censorship, or one well placed nuclear weapon. Where would we put the main database? Would we distribute it? What about back ups?

Again, it is outside of the scope of the United Nations to even be involved with this. Build this repository if you wish, inside your borders. Connect it to the contries who wish to have access. But bankrupting the world to build this system which is a redundancy is neither feasable nor a "great idea."

When did it shift from donations to mandatory contributions, also known as taxation?

What happened to the "Repeal the Global Library" thread? This thread was created by Great Agnostica to gather ideas for a new global library resolution after repealing the current one. Nargopia researched and provided new ideas for the new resolution, ideas that Great Agnostica seemed to support in part. However, I look now and see that the thread is gone. Not only this, but Great Agnostica has posted his new ideas for the resolution without informing this gathered body about Nargopia's contributions! I fervently request an explanation for what is going on.

1:
Don't take it personal if Great Agnostica doesn't mention anybody by name. There have been hundreds of posts about this debate topic spread out in several different threads. In fact, this resolution may soon be the most viewed and talked about resolution for the past few months.

2:
This bulletin board works by putting recent posts on the top of the page. The repeal thread you are looking for might be on a second page.

Is this what you are looking for:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387018

If majority says they want the program that means every one pays for it unless you leave the UN. That's democracy people.

It is this kind of thoughtless legislation that pushes sensible nations out of the UN, I have left, if this passes I want no part of it.

*Side Note* I am sure that a lot of these people who are against the library are also leaders of totalitarian police states.

I may be against this proposition, but i am not a totalitarian police state, I am a Left Leaning College State, and im guessing many others have different political views and still opose this.



3) I believe that if you don't have something positive to say, then don't say anything. All the negative attitudes coming from other players aren't helping matters.

Negative attitudes are exactly what are needed, just as much as poistive attitudes. Critisism from both is what is needed in these debates so we may learn what is best for everyone. Free speach is essential.

I am grateful this proposition has come to light. It is a wonderful idea and hopefully we may have a rethink of it not too far from now which will include positive aspects in a more practical light. The current proposition sounds great but would not work in many of our nations, it is for this reason that it should not be passed. BlazedAces describes it best, I recomend you read their entry.

Heres hoping that lessons can be learned from this.

...........it just passed, blast.......

There is a difference between saying you don't like the proposal (now a resolution) and saying that the person who proposed it is a brain dead retard who has no business talking, let alone making law. The first is constructive critisim, and the second is what I would call a negative attitude.

Even if you don't agree with a proposal, it is far, far, far more helpful to suggest ways it could be changed, or what exactly is wrong with it, without descending to name calling and insults. Cause that just annoys people, then nothing gets done because it becomes a big (/minor) flame war.

There is a difference between saying you don't like the proposal (now a resolution) and saying that the person who proposed it is a brain dead retard who has no business talking, let alone making law. The first is constructive critisim, and the second is what I would call a negative attitude.

Even if you don't agree with a proposal, it is far, far, far more helpful to suggest ways it could be changed, or what exactly is wrong with it, without descending to name calling and insults. Cause that just annoys people, then nothing gets done because it becomes a big (/minor) flame war.

I don't know if you want my thanks but thanks anyway.

I don't know if you want my thanks but thanks anyway.

You are most welcome.