Sorry Dave, but you are the one who is wrong. The UNCHR's mandate was to "examine, monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories". It was not to bring notorious violators on board as peers in order to engage with them. Yes, there is a place and time for that, but the police's role is to arrest offenders, not to have a discussion with them and definitely not to enrol criminals among their ranks in order to help improve these criminals' reputation. It was in fact so discredited that to the UN's credit, it was dissolved in 2006 precisely for that reason and replaced by the HRC. And since we are at it, what are the human rights improvements that were made in Lybia and Iran, under the respective presidency of those two countries? And, more importantly and closer to the topic, what about Figueres' view that political pluralism is "very detrimental" to the CO2 emissions cause? Is it also a case of a wannabe dictator appointed by the UN so that she can improve her ways?
I don't care about fossil fuels industries or their profits. What I *DO* care about is energy availability, abundance and cost. The fact is that there is NO substitute for fossil at the present time. Nope, nada. If and when thorium technology or fusion become a reality, I will be all for converting our infrastructure to use them, but currently it's either fossil fuel or a massive regression in living standards. Such is the reality and even the more honest ones among green activists admit that.
Ok. Would you care to explain what would replace coal, then? Which non-fossil source of energy is readily available, can be used 24/7, can provide as many or more GWh than coal at a cost to the consumer no higher than coal, is scalable enough to meet future demands (e.g. provide more energy per capita for 9 billion people at a lower cost) and can be deployed now, in poor and rich countries alike? I'm sorry but THOSE are the issues to be adressed, they come before "carbon" considerations.
The UN? Is it the same UN who elected Gaddafi's Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission, elected Iran on the Women's Rights Commission, repeatedly praises Cuba as a "victim" and appointed as Exec Secretary of the UNFCCC none other than Christiana Figueres, who is (in)famous for publicly admiring the way how China's totalitarian government can impose decisions on society without having to worry about those pesky checks, balances, freedom and other democratic inconveniences; among other great achievements? That's some moral authority!
Perhaps torturing you to death, burning your house and selling your children into slavery. Don't forgat that for those people copyright violation is the most terrible crime imaginable, worse than murder, child rape and high treason combined.
IMHO there are many nice things to be said about systemd:
- 1) it provides a predictable baseline set of features that developers can rely on
- 2) it allows apps to create and manage services using a well-defined API rather than random, break-prone, kludgey scripts
- 3) dependency resolution, evenement handling etc.
- 4) at last it gets rid of the *nix heritage
"... evidence indicating how the site is involved in illegal copyright infringement."
Does it mean they don't go after legal copyright infringement? Or only after those who infringe on illegal copyrights?