Fascinating that it takes about ten seconds with Google to prove my claims are correct yet you seem utterly uninterested in even that minor effort. Speaks volumes about your desire to know the truth of the situation.
Not that you'll bother reading any of it, of course, but just to prove you're wrong here are some links:
There are literally hundreds of other links to similar articles from a variety of sources, all corroborating my statement. Would you like a glass of water to help wash down the taste of crow? Care to admit you're wrong so you don't seem so much like a smug, ignorant ass?
You miss the point. There is zero evidence shelving breeder reactors did anything to stifle proliferation. We've denied ourselves an extremely efficient way to generate power and nearly eliminate dangerous nuclear waste for nothing.
The real issue is with the nuclear waste for which we have still no proper solution.
We have a technology that can burn this waste in a reactor, extracting useful energy and closing the nuclear fuel cycle. Total amounts of waste a drastically reduced and such waste is vastly less radioactive. Unfortunately this technology was shelved in the 1970's because the fearmongers were screaming about nuclear proliferation concerns. They were terrified rogue countries like Iran and North Korea making nuclear bombs. How'd that "if we abandon this useful technology we will make the world safer" plan work out?
Nuclear meltdowns remove all life from an area and poisons it for many years.
Really? I guess you better tell the scientists who are studying the Chernobyl area where wildlife has seen an incredible resurgence, surpassing pre-meltdown levels. You might also want to inform those studying the Fukushima meltdown who have categorically shown absolutely ZERO deaths due to radioactivity.
This kind of claptrap is exactly the useless, factless fearmongering ignorance that keeps the US and other countries from developing safe, cheap nuclear power.
A nuclear meltdown is caused by one thing, and an entire growing industry of power alternatives exist that fully mitigate the risk of a meltdown by essentially removing the risk altogether. Let's not try and compare these two risks as equal; they are clearly not.
While it's true wind and solar don't have meltdown risks like nuclear plants, they are not risk-free. It's just the risks are more distributed. Solar requires rare earth mining which involves lots of heavy equipment and dangerous work environments. Wind turbine construction has killed workers from falls and other actions associated with working in and around heavy machinery. I think that's more in line with the risks the OP was referring to.
You're right on the shoe thing. The OP was probably thinking of Radithor, the "cure all" quackery that blossomed back when people thought radioactivity was the gateway to better health.
I have little doubt the issue here isn't that the cafeteria staff is being underpaid. The issue is they're living in an area where the cost of living is astronomical why trying to raise three kids. You have a finite number of choices here:
1. Get a new job that makes more money but this is unlikely given the available skillset and that FB is probably already paying top "cafeteria working" dollar. 2. Don't have kids you can't afford but this horse has already left the barn. Should've planned better. 3. Learn a new, more valuable skill, but given the high concentration of very competent techies in the area that would be unlikely for a food service worker. 4. MOVE TO BETTER LOCATION. The problem isn't how much money you make. It's how much you have to spend to just subsist in that area of the country.
Option #4 is the best option but the family wants someone to magically create Option #5 where they make far more money than their labor is worth so they can afford to live in a community where everyone's skills are far more valuable, thus distorting the labor market and creating an artificial -- and unsustainable -- labor model. But hey! Who cares about reality or labor markets? Far better to flout supply-and-demand economics to prop up something otherwise unworkable, right? After all, it worked so well for the Soviets, why not try it here too?
The only ones trying to ram ideology down throats are those colleges who endorse violence against anyone they disagree with, foment riots, and demand censorship of opposing ideas.
If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.
Now now...don't you know you backwards rural folks in flyover country are supposed to submit to your superiors living in the elite coastal cities? You don't need representation. You simply need to be told what's best for you, shut up, pay your taxes, and go along with it. People like Chucky Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, celebrities living in million-dollar mansions in gated communities with their yachts and private jets, they are simply better than you and deserve to rule you. You're just little people. Submit to slavery and be free!
An article presenting a Trump action in a positive light...on SLASHDOT??? Pink elephants must be ice skating in hell.
Hyperbole aside, this is but one example of how ridiculous the "administrative state" has become in America. Ronald Reagan once said "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." This Y2K requirement is perhaps one of millions of such examples. I'm not particularly fond of Trump himself but anything he does to reduce the awful sprawl and inefficiency of government is something we should all be in favor of regardless of which side of the aisle our politics fall on.
From bitter personal experience, trying to implement the entire ITIL manual down to the tiniest detail instead of treating it as a guideline for what might be applicable.
Case in point: my former employer had a dated-but-usable change management and helpdesk system they'd used for years. It was due for replacement. They brought in a non-IT project manager to design it. Mrs. Non-IT Project Manager proceeded to treat the ITIL guidelines as some sort of roadmap, demanding the most granular, process-laden, cumbersome, needlessly-complex system I've ever seen. It was universally reviled. Nobody understood it. Nobody was properly trained on it. Tasks that used to take hours now took days. People started working around it, not using it, in order to get even basic stuff done. The system required a complete overhaul -- this time using actual input from the people who would be using it and/or served by it -- and eventually became usable at a cost and schedule far beyond the original mandate.
Meanwhile Mrs. Non-IT Project Manager was given a raise and promoted to somewhere where she couldn't do that kind of damage again.
Does that mean that opposing party response to presidential speeches is no longer required?
Well since ABC, as a private company, is already not required to air opposing views I guess it's definitely not required, eh? There, that was simple, wasn't it?
Just because the networks have traditionally carried both viewpoints doesn't mean they were required to do so by law. They did so because it's what their viewers wanted and expected.
The only possible thing ABC/NBC/CBS/etc. might have run afoul of by, say, covering nobody but Hillary Clinton and nothing about Trump, might have been campaign finance laws, not the Constitution. A network that covered only one candidate could conceivably be construed as being an advertisement for that candidate, especially if all they gave was positive coverage of the candidate. Such "campaign contributions" would violate election finance laws as airtime has an intrinsic value even if the networks "gave it a away" for free for their chosen candidate.
He doesn't have to listen. But if he permits comments from his supporters and uses the account for presidential purposes, then he has to accept ALL comments without editing out those he doesn't like or blocking commenters that he doesn't like.
Really? Find me the part in the Constitution where it says the President is required to accept all comments -- or, in other words, "speech" -- from everyone? So the President is, by law, required to listen to everyone about everything everywhere everytime? The poor man would never get to sleep much less get any governing done! Hell, you could paralyze the government by lining people up and effectively fillibustering the POTUS in the Oval Office!
But I digress. You won't find such a "right" because it doesn't exist. Your voice in the government exists via the ballot box. The government is under no compulsion to entertain your childish drivel about bizarre rights you dreamed up because you think you deserve them. Once the election is over you have to wait your turn -- a difficult concept for entitled snowflakes to grasp, I know -- to get another chance in the next election.
On the other hand, as a government official using what is arguably an official government platform to do that communicating, it could be that blocking a Twitter user is a form of censorship.
Sigh. No, it's not. It's not even close. If Trump blocks someone from his Twitter feed can the blocked individual still tweet? Yes. Can the blocked individual still see Trump's tweets? Yes. So you see dear snowflake, censorship requires the blocked person to be prevented from doing these things. So long as an outlet exists for a person to get their "speech" out -- even if no one is listening -- you can't call it censorship.
Anyway all this is stupid and pointless since Twitter is a private company and can do whatever they want. Private companies are under no Constitutional obligation to provide anyone with a megaphone. If Twitter banned all Republicans or all Democrats or all Communists or all Socialists tomorrow no one could sue them for a rights violation. Which is just as it should be. Unlike you, the Founding Fathers were wise about such things and thought about the ramifications of what they were doing.
The first amendment is more than just freedom of speech. It also contains the right to "petition the government". It is arguable that this requires that the government be forced to listen to (not agree with) you. If the twitter account is considered an official communication platform (per Spicer) then it MAY be that the President (or his designee) would be required to listen to people who communicate with it.
Except that your right to petition the government still exists in many other forms, none of which are affected. Twitter is a private company not a government news organ. Every governmentally-available channel for you to "petition" still exists.
This is kind of like people inventing a right to board an airplane because the Constitution protects freedom of movement. No, snowflake, you have no right to board a plane just because you want to go somewhere. It means the government can't stop you from getting there. Nobody is stopping you from driving, or riding a horse, or even walking. The Constitution doesn't protect your right to do everything your way. This is not Burger King.
Actually, it does. You have a Constitutional right to say whatever you want. Twitter is under no obligation to post it. Period.
If you disagree, consider you can mail a letter to any newspaper, magazine, website, whatever you want but are they required by law to print it? If true for you then what about the tens of thousands of other people who do it? Must they be published as well or is it just you that gets the special treatment? And if everyone gets it, the newspaper/magazine/whatever ceases to be whatever it was before and goes out of business from sheer volume of crap.
Twitter as a private company isn't required to do anything for you, give you anything, listen to you, accommodate you, do business with you, or obey you.
If climate change lacks intelligent, rational debate, is that because of the scientists and their evidence, or the deniers and their partisan hysteria?
You clearly don't understand what a strawman is. Either that or you've never been on the receiving end of a frothing, vituperating, gesticulating climate-change believer. Perhaps both. Although you're unlikely to believe it, anyone daring to question whether the proposed climate "solution" is really the best and only answer is a fantastic way to bring out every left-leaning wacko, kook, nutcase, and social justice warrior, all eager to scream, condescend, insult, belittle, and in general be obnoxious asses to the nth degree. They don't reason. They don't seek to convince or inform. The very act of not taking their every word and whim as absolutist gospel is apostasy in their eyes.
Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, there are large numbers of people who do not take this "settled science" argument to heart simply because all the scientists in the room nod up and down at the same time. Science isn't infallible and there have been numerous instances where its prophetic predictions have not only been wrong but absurdly wrong. True scientists welcome debate, welcome questioning, and eagerly seek out discussion on the subject. Yet today's climate warriors abhor all of that. We're told to not question the orthodoxy, that if you don't take their word for it simply because a bunch of them are saying the same thing then you're an idiot, and that their solution is the only solution and anyone suggesting otherwise needs to be shouted down, protested, vilified, threatened...whatever it takes short of engaging in actual, logical, reasoned debate.
Deniers? No. Simply people who want to be convinced before committing to huge lifestyle alterations. But you guys don't want to do any convincing. You say "we did all the research, wrote the reports, reviewed ourselves, judged ourselves, published ourselves, policed ourselves, and patted ourselves on the back so you need to trust us and not question a thing we say or you're a 'denier'." Sorry but it doesn't work that way. We're not flat-earthers. We simply believe in the scientific method where incredible claims require incredible evidence from non-partisan, non-political sources who have nothing to gain or lose based on the outcome of the research. The CPP is so overtly political as to be untrustable, yet its data are constantly used to prove every assertion you try shoving down our throats. Is it any wonder there is resistance to it?
.) Does pulling out of the Paris agreement prevent us from making as good or better climate decisions?
No but the left is so invested in the idea of "my way is the only way and if you don't agree then you must be against solving the problem at all" they refuse to even consider this concept. There is no such thing as intelligent, rational, civil debate anymore. Don't like the Paris Accords? YOU HATE THE EARTH AND WANT DIRTY WATER AND DIRTY AIR AND POISON AND YOU LITTER AND YOU NEED TO DIE. They don't even allow you to state the obvious: nobody wants any of that. Those of us who don't like the Paris Accords merely think the same things can be accomplished -- perhaps even improved upon -- with other ideas that may cost less, impact our lives less, have better outcomes, or all three.
.) Is the Paris agreement actually about climate, or redistribution of wealth?
Well let's see. Non-western "developing" nations are given all sorts of caveats and loopholes to emit and pollute. Meanwhile developed Western nations (which actually means "America" in practice) are penalized and asked to do the bulk of the sacrifice with the rationale being "hey, those rich Americans have the money so they should make the biggest sacrifices." This has the funny side effect of hobbling America's economy while allowing others to take advantage of such hobbling to expand their economies and political/military influence. Total emissions -- which is the stated goal of the Accords -- may go down but not nearly as much as they would if everyone was equally penalized.
So, to sum up, if the Accords are about climate and not wealth re-alignment/redistribution they sure do a crappy job of the former but a damn good job at the latter. The conclusion is obvious.
.) Did congress ratify our participation, or did the previous president cheat that democratic process?
Only Congress can ratify treaties which is why Obama cleverly decided to call this the "Paris Climate Accords" instead of the "Paris Climate Treaty" like everyone else. He never even tried putting it before Congress, probably because the political fallout would have cost him too much and it would never be ratified without Republican support. So yeah, he cheated the Constitutional process. The good news is because he cheated we can get out of it.
If Miami condo owners are shitting themselves over a 1-2 degree temperature change by the year 2100 -- which is likely beyond their lifespan -- then they've got some really bizarre priorities. I'd wager the average Miami condo owner doesn't give a shit about this at all. There are plenty of other items that loom much larger than something that won't happen until well after you're dead and buried.
It's not the nitrogen that kills you, it's the lack of oxygen.
And this is different from CO2...how, exactly?
Oh, that's right, it's not. In fact any gas you inhale other than oxygen displaces oxygen by definition. Not enough oxygen equals dead human regardless of whether you're inhaling CO2, nitrogen, helium, argon, or any number of other relatively inert gasses. Breathing too much oxygen will kill you as well depending upon pressure.
This is what online discourse has devolved into. It's a sort of "if I agree with you I will defend you no matter how reprehensible and disgusting you may be; if I disagree with you I will hate you no matter how noble and helpful you are."
This is the logical, expected outcome of raising an entire generation of "citizens" who are unable to deal with being wrong about anything and must have everything their way.
Why should we when technology exists to make the waste vastly safer, smaller in volume, and extract power from it all at the same time?
How many deaths do you think will occur during that time from contaminated ground, air and water?
Suspiciously few given that said waste can be made far less dangerous than it currently is all while generating power and a profit. The hurdle is emotional, not technical or economical.
The problem with nuclear power advocates is the problem with most people. They can't picture even 100 years into the future, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years. Peoples minds are just not designed to think that far ahead. This is the most important thing that nuclear advocates always miss. And they explain it away like "oh well we will figure out what to do with the waste eventually!". Its the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
You seem to be one of the less-informed types of opposition so allow me to again state we have the means to use that waste to generate power over and over again until the amount of waste is vastly smaller and much less radioactive. Think for a moment about radioactivity. Why is the waste dangerous? Because it's radioactive, right? But radioactivity is, in essence, energy. Harness that energy and you both reduce the total radioactivity of the waste -- conservation of energy basics -- and convert that radioactivity into useful power. When you've extracted all the power (aka "radioactivity") from the waste you can feasibly extract, you're left with a much smaller volume of waste which also happens to be much less dangerous to dispose of.
Of course. But the requirements for complying with (what is now considered) basic safety features are very expensive. But you probably think those should be skipped too even though radioactive contamination from nuclear accidents are a global problem?
Nuclear energy in itself is expensive.
You miss the point: nuclear energy doesn't have to be this expensive. In case you're unaware, here's what happens when a utility proposed to build, expand, change, modernize, or pretty much do anything with nuclear power: they get sued. Immediately. Repeatedly. Usually for trivial, irrelevant, illogical reasons. Some judge somewhere says the utility can't do anything until the suit is addressed. Months or years are spent fighting the suit at the cost of millions of dollars. Once the utility prevails -- and they almost always do due to the frequently-frivolous nature of the suits -- someone else sues them for something else. More delay. More wasted funds.
It doesn't stop once construction begins either. The tree-hugger groups do everything they can to obstruct, delay, and cause costs to increase. Once they've done that, they proudly scream about how expensive nuclear is compared to other sources of power!
These same fools also continually block the improvement of existing reactors using similar tactics. And, when they succeed in keeping nuclear technology stalled at late-1970's levels, they scream about how unsafe nuclear power is compared to modern alternatives!
A modern nuclear plant is extremely safe, efficient, has lower maintenance costs, and effectively-inexhaustible fuel. Waste disposal is similarly hobbled by the same tree-huggers listed above and yet there are safe, efficient options to use that waste to generate more power, all while vastly decreasing the amount and danger of waste that finally finds its way into disposal.
Nuclear power would be an incredible boon to all of humanity if allowed to progress and spread. Alas, those who know the least about the technology also happen to be its most vociferous opponents.
Are you sure? Just because hydro dropped from 90% to 56% doesn't mean a bunch of dams were torn down or opened up. It's far more likely consumption increased since 1970 and, because hydro is only suitable in certain areas which were likely already in use, the increased demand was met with other sources.
Just like oil, big "deposits" of hydro power aren't found just anywhere. Worse than oil, hydropower must be produced and consumed relatively close to one another or you lose it all in transmission inefficiency. My guess is the easiest -- and thus cheapest to exploit -- hydro sources are probably all taken by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascinating that it takes about ten seconds with Google to prove my claims are correct yet you seem utterly uninterested in even that minor effort. Speaks volumes about your desire to know the truth of the situation.
Not that you'll bother reading any of it, of course, but just to prove you're wrong here are some links:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are literally hundreds of other links to similar articles from a variety of sources, all corroborating my statement. Would you like a glass of water to help wash down the taste of crow? Care to admit you're wrong so you don't seem so much like a smug, ignorant ass?
You miss the point. There is zero evidence shelving breeder reactors did anything to stifle proliferation. We've denied ourselves an extremely efficient way to generate power and nearly eliminate dangerous nuclear waste for nothing.
The real issue is with the nuclear waste for which we have still no proper solution.
We have a technology that can burn this waste in a reactor, extracting useful energy and closing the nuclear fuel cycle. Total amounts of waste a drastically reduced and such waste is vastly less radioactive. Unfortunately this technology was shelved in the 1970's because the fearmongers were screaming about nuclear proliferation concerns. They were terrified rogue countries like Iran and North Korea making nuclear bombs. How'd that "if we abandon this useful technology we will make the world safer" plan work out?
Nuclear meltdowns remove all life from an area and poisons it for many years.
Really? I guess you better tell the scientists who are studying the Chernobyl area where wildlife has seen an incredible resurgence, surpassing pre-meltdown levels. You might also want to inform those studying the Fukushima meltdown who have categorically shown absolutely ZERO deaths due to radioactivity.
This kind of claptrap is exactly the useless, factless fearmongering ignorance that keeps the US and other countries from developing safe, cheap nuclear power.
A nuclear meltdown is caused by one thing, and an entire growing industry of power alternatives exist that fully mitigate the risk of a meltdown by essentially removing the risk altogether. Let's not try and compare these two risks as equal; they are clearly not.
While it's true wind and solar don't have meltdown risks like nuclear plants, they are not risk-free. It's just the risks are more distributed. Solar requires rare earth mining which involves lots of heavy equipment and dangerous work environments. Wind turbine construction has killed workers from falls and other actions associated with working in and around heavy machinery. I think that's more in line with the risks the OP was referring to.
You're right on the shoe thing. The OP was probably thinking of Radithor, the "cure all" quackery that blossomed back when people thought radioactivity was the gateway to better health.
Everyone you like dies. Horribly. Evil rules Westeros forever. Roll credits.
I have little doubt the issue here isn't that the cafeteria staff is being underpaid. The issue is they're living in an area where the cost of living is astronomical why trying to raise three kids. You have a finite number of choices here:
1. Get a new job that makes more money but this is unlikely given the available skillset and that FB is probably already paying top "cafeteria working" dollar.
2. Don't have kids you can't afford but this horse has already left the barn. Should've planned better.
3. Learn a new, more valuable skill, but given the high concentration of very competent techies in the area that would be unlikely for a food service worker.
4. MOVE TO BETTER LOCATION. The problem isn't how much money you make. It's how much you have to spend to just subsist in that area of the country.
Option #4 is the best option but the family wants someone to magically create Option #5 where they make far more money than their labor is worth so they can afford to live in a community where everyone's skills are far more valuable, thus distorting the labor market and creating an artificial -- and unsustainable -- labor model. But hey! Who cares about reality or labor markets? Far better to flout supply-and-demand economics to prop up something otherwise unworkable, right? After all, it worked so well for the Soviets, why not try it here too?
The only ones trying to ram ideology down throats are those colleges who endorse violence against anyone they disagree with, foment riots, and demand censorship of opposing ideas.
If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.
Now now...don't you know you backwards rural folks in flyover country are supposed to submit to your superiors living in the elite coastal cities? You don't need representation. You simply need to be told what's best for you, shut up, pay your taxes, and go along with it. People like Chucky Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, celebrities living in million-dollar mansions in gated communities with their yachts and private jets, they are simply better than you and deserve to rule you. You're just little people. Submit to slavery and be free!
(sarcasm off)
An article presenting a Trump action in a positive light...on SLASHDOT??? Pink elephants must be ice skating in hell.
Hyperbole aside, this is but one example of how ridiculous the "administrative state" has become in America. Ronald Reagan once said "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." This Y2K requirement is perhaps one of millions of such examples. I'm not particularly fond of Trump himself but anything he does to reduce the awful sprawl and inefficiency of government is something we should all be in favor of regardless of which side of the aisle our politics fall on.
From bitter personal experience, trying to implement the entire ITIL manual down to the tiniest detail instead of treating it as a guideline for what might be applicable.
Case in point: my former employer had a dated-but-usable change management and helpdesk system they'd used for years. It was due for replacement. They brought in a non-IT project manager to design it. Mrs. Non-IT Project Manager proceeded to treat the ITIL guidelines as some sort of roadmap, demanding the most granular, process-laden, cumbersome, needlessly-complex system I've ever seen. It was universally reviled. Nobody understood it. Nobody was properly trained on it. Tasks that used to take hours now took days. People started working around it, not using it, in order to get even basic stuff done. The system required a complete overhaul -- this time using actual input from the people who would be using it and/or served by it -- and eventually became usable at a cost and schedule far beyond the original mandate.
Meanwhile Mrs. Non-IT Project Manager was given a raise and promoted to somewhere where she couldn't do that kind of damage again.
Does that mean that opposing party response to presidential speeches is no longer required?
Well since ABC, as a private company, is already not required to air opposing views I guess it's definitely not required, eh? There, that was simple, wasn't it?
Just because the networks have traditionally carried both viewpoints doesn't mean they were required to do so by law. They did so because it's what their viewers wanted and expected.
The only possible thing ABC/NBC/CBS/etc. might have run afoul of by, say, covering nobody but Hillary Clinton and nothing about Trump, might have been campaign finance laws, not the Constitution. A network that covered only one candidate could conceivably be construed as being an advertisement for that candidate, especially if all they gave was positive coverage of the candidate. Such "campaign contributions" would violate election finance laws as airtime has an intrinsic value even if the networks "gave it a away" for free for their chosen candidate.
He doesn't have to listen. But if he permits comments from his supporters and uses the account for presidential purposes, then he has to accept ALL comments without editing out those he doesn't like or blocking commenters that he doesn't like.
Really? Find me the part in the Constitution where it says the President is required to accept all comments -- or, in other words, "speech" -- from everyone? So the President is, by law, required to listen to everyone about everything everywhere everytime? The poor man would never get to sleep much less get any governing done! Hell, you could paralyze the government by lining people up and effectively fillibustering the POTUS in the Oval Office!
But I digress. You won't find such a "right" because it doesn't exist. Your voice in the government exists via the ballot box. The government is under no compulsion to entertain your childish drivel about bizarre rights you dreamed up because you think you deserve them. Once the election is over you have to wait your turn -- a difficult concept for entitled snowflakes to grasp, I know -- to get another chance in the next election.
On the other hand, as a government official using what is arguably an official government platform to do that communicating, it could be that blocking a Twitter user is a form of censorship.
Sigh. No, it's not. It's not even close. If Trump blocks someone from his Twitter feed can the blocked individual still tweet? Yes. Can the blocked individual still see Trump's tweets? Yes. So you see dear snowflake, censorship requires the blocked person to be prevented from doing these things. So long as an outlet exists for a person to get their "speech" out -- even if no one is listening -- you can't call it censorship.
Anyway all this is stupid and pointless since Twitter is a private company and can do whatever they want. Private companies are under no Constitutional obligation to provide anyone with a megaphone. If Twitter banned all Republicans or all Democrats or all Communists or all Socialists tomorrow no one could sue them for a rights violation. Which is just as it should be. Unlike you, the Founding Fathers were wise about such things and thought about the ramifications of what they were doing.
The first amendment is more than just freedom of speech. It also contains the right to "petition the government". It is arguable that this requires that the government be forced to listen to (not agree with) you. If the twitter account is considered an official communication platform (per Spicer) then it MAY be that the President (or his designee) would be required to listen to people who communicate with it.
Except that your right to petition the government still exists in many other forms, none of which are affected. Twitter is a private company not a government news organ. Every governmentally-available channel for you to "petition" still exists.
This is kind of like people inventing a right to board an airplane because the Constitution protects freedom of movement. No, snowflake, you have no right to board a plane just because you want to go somewhere. It means the government can't stop you from getting there. Nobody is stopping you from driving, or riding a horse, or even walking. The Constitution doesn't protect your right to do everything your way. This is not Burger King.
It doesn't matter who owns the site.
Actually, it does. You have a Constitutional right to say whatever you want. Twitter is under no obligation to post it. Period.
If you disagree, consider you can mail a letter to any newspaper, magazine, website, whatever you want but are they required by law to print it? If true for you then what about the tens of thousands of other people who do it? Must they be published as well or is it just you that gets the special treatment? And if everyone gets it, the newspaper/magazine/whatever ceases to be whatever it was before and goes out of business from sheer volume of crap.
Twitter as a private company isn't required to do anything for you, give you anything, listen to you, accommodate you, do business with you, or obey you.
If climate change lacks intelligent, rational debate, is that because of the scientists and their evidence, or the deniers and their partisan hysteria?
You clearly don't understand what a strawman is. Either that or you've never been on the receiving end of a frothing, vituperating, gesticulating climate-change believer. Perhaps both. Although you're unlikely to believe it, anyone daring to question whether the proposed climate "solution" is really the best and only answer is a fantastic way to bring out every left-leaning wacko, kook, nutcase, and social justice warrior, all eager to scream, condescend, insult, belittle, and in general be obnoxious asses to the nth degree. They don't reason. They don't seek to convince or inform. The very act of not taking their every word and whim as absolutist gospel is apostasy in their eyes.
Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, there are large numbers of people who do not take this "settled science" argument to heart simply because all the scientists in the room nod up and down at the same time. Science isn't infallible and there have been numerous instances where its prophetic predictions have not only been wrong but absurdly wrong. True scientists welcome debate, welcome questioning, and eagerly seek out discussion on the subject. Yet today's climate warriors abhor all of that. We're told to not question the orthodoxy, that if you don't take their word for it simply because a bunch of them are saying the same thing then you're an idiot, and that their solution is the only solution and anyone suggesting otherwise needs to be shouted down, protested, vilified, threatened...whatever it takes short of engaging in actual, logical, reasoned debate.
Deniers? No. Simply people who want to be convinced before committing to huge lifestyle alterations. But you guys don't want to do any convincing. You say "we did all the research, wrote the reports, reviewed ourselves, judged ourselves, published ourselves, policed ourselves, and patted ourselves on the back so you need to trust us and not question a thing we say or you're a 'denier'." Sorry but it doesn't work that way. We're not flat-earthers. We simply believe in the scientific method where incredible claims require incredible evidence from non-partisan, non-political sources who have nothing to gain or lose based on the outcome of the research. The CPP is so overtly political as to be untrustable, yet its data are constantly used to prove every assertion you try shoving down our throats. Is it any wonder there is resistance to it?
.) Does pulling out of the Paris agreement prevent us from making as good or better climate decisions?
No but the left is so invested in the idea of "my way is the only way and if you don't agree then you must be against solving the problem at all" they refuse to even consider this concept. There is no such thing as intelligent, rational, civil debate anymore. Don't like the Paris Accords? YOU HATE THE EARTH AND WANT DIRTY WATER AND DIRTY AIR AND POISON AND YOU LITTER AND YOU NEED TO DIE. They don't even allow you to state the obvious: nobody wants any of that. Those of us who don't like the Paris Accords merely think the same things can be accomplished -- perhaps even improved upon -- with other ideas that may cost less, impact our lives less, have better outcomes, or all three.
.) Is the Paris agreement actually about climate, or redistribution of wealth?
Well let's see. Non-western "developing" nations are given all sorts of caveats and loopholes to emit and pollute. Meanwhile developed Western nations (which actually means "America" in practice) are penalized and asked to do the bulk of the sacrifice with the rationale being "hey, those rich Americans have the money so they should make the biggest sacrifices." This has the funny side effect of hobbling America's economy while allowing others to take advantage of such hobbling to expand their economies and political/military influence. Total emissions -- which is the stated goal of the Accords -- may go down but not nearly as much as they would if everyone was equally penalized.
So, to sum up, if the Accords are about climate and not wealth re-alignment/redistribution they sure do a crappy job of the former but a damn good job at the latter. The conclusion is obvious.
.) Did congress ratify our participation, or did the previous president cheat that democratic process?
Only Congress can ratify treaties which is why Obama cleverly decided to call this the "Paris Climate Accords" instead of the "Paris Climate Treaty" like everyone else. He never even tried putting it before Congress, probably because the political fallout would have cost him too much and it would never be ratified without Republican support. So yeah, he cheated the Constitutional process. The good news is because he cheated we can get out of it.
If Miami condo owners are shitting themselves over a 1-2 degree temperature change by the year 2100 -- which is likely beyond their lifespan -- then they've got some really bizarre priorities. I'd wager the average Miami condo owner doesn't give a shit about this at all. There are plenty of other items that loom much larger than something that won't happen until well after you're dead and buried.
It's not the nitrogen that kills you, it's the lack of oxygen.
And this is different from CO2...how, exactly?
Oh, that's right, it's not. In fact any gas you inhale other than oxygen displaces oxygen by definition. Not enough oxygen equals dead human regardless of whether you're inhaling CO2, nitrogen, helium, argon, or any number of other relatively inert gasses. Breathing too much oxygen will kill you as well depending upon pressure.
This is what online discourse has devolved into. It's a sort of "if I agree with you I will defend you no matter how reprehensible and disgusting you may be; if I disagree with you I will hate you no matter how noble and helpful you are."
This is the logical, expected outcome of raising an entire generation of "citizens" who are unable to deal with being wrong about anything and must have everything their way.
Have you averaged that out over 100,000 years?
Why should we when technology exists to make the waste vastly safer, smaller in volume, and extract power from it all at the same time?
How many deaths do you think will occur during that time from contaminated ground, air and water?
Suspiciously few given that said waste can be made far less dangerous than it currently is all while generating power and a profit. The hurdle is emotional, not technical or economical.
The problem with nuclear power advocates is the problem with most people. They can't picture even 100 years into the future, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years. Peoples minds are just not designed to think that far ahead. This is the most important thing that nuclear advocates always miss. And they explain it away like "oh well we will figure out what to do with the waste eventually!".
Its the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
You seem to be one of the less-informed types of opposition so allow me to again state we have the means to use that waste to generate power over and over again until the amount of waste is vastly smaller and much less radioactive. Think for a moment about radioactivity. Why is the waste dangerous? Because it's radioactive, right? But radioactivity is, in essence, energy. Harness that energy and you both reduce the total radioactivity of the waste -- conservation of energy basics -- and convert that radioactivity into useful power. When you've extracted all the power (aka "radioactivity") from the waste you can feasibly extract, you're left with a much smaller volume of waste which also happens to be much less dangerous to dispose of.
Of course. But the requirements for complying with (what is now considered) basic safety features are very expensive. But you probably think those should be skipped too even though radioactive contamination from nuclear accidents are a global problem?
Nuclear energy in itself is expensive.
You miss the point: nuclear energy doesn't have to be this expensive. In case you're unaware, here's what happens when a utility proposed to build, expand, change, modernize, or pretty much do anything with nuclear power: they get sued. Immediately. Repeatedly. Usually for trivial, irrelevant, illogical reasons. Some judge somewhere says the utility can't do anything until the suit is addressed. Months or years are spent fighting the suit at the cost of millions of dollars. Once the utility prevails -- and they almost always do due to the frequently-frivolous nature of the suits -- someone else sues them for something else. More delay. More wasted funds.
It doesn't stop once construction begins either. The tree-hugger groups do everything they can to obstruct, delay, and cause costs to increase. Once they've done that, they proudly scream about how expensive nuclear is compared to other sources of power!
These same fools also continually block the improvement of existing reactors using similar tactics. And, when they succeed in keeping nuclear technology stalled at late-1970's levels, they scream about how unsafe nuclear power is compared to modern alternatives!
A modern nuclear plant is extremely safe, efficient, has lower maintenance costs, and effectively-inexhaustible fuel. Waste disposal is similarly hobbled by the same tree-huggers listed above and yet there are safe, efficient options to use that waste to generate more power, all while vastly decreasing the amount and danger of waste that finally finds its way into disposal.
Nuclear power would be an incredible boon to all of humanity if allowed to progress and spread. Alas, those who know the least about the technology also happen to be its most vociferous opponents.
Switzerland has all that hydro to fall back on.
Are you sure? Just because hydro dropped from 90% to 56% doesn't mean a bunch of dams were torn down or opened up. It's far more likely consumption increased since 1970 and, because hydro is only suitable in certain areas which were likely already in use, the increased demand was met with other sources.
Just like oil, big "deposits" of hydro power aren't found just anywhere. Worse than oil, hydropower must be produced and consumed relatively close to one another or you lose it all in transmission inefficiency. My guess is the easiest -- and thus cheapest to exploit -- hydro sources are probably all taken by now.