Yes. Because the regulations weren't enforced we should clearly have no regulations ever!
Also all those laws about murder? Useless! Look at the people who get murdered each year. Anti-murder laws only encourage people to more carefully plan their murders!
Scientists tend to dismiss the placebo effect. We should be studying it. Trying to understand the mechanisms behind it, instead of taking more potentially harmful substances into our bodies.
Medical scientists study the placebo effect all the time. It is one of the most highly studied phenomenons in medicine, we study it with every condition we search for a drug for.
The point of the placebo effect is that it is entirely psychological. It is not clinically real - it is not physiological. It's important because a great deal of medicine is asking how the patient feels to diagnose, but we also know that simply paying attention to people often makes them feel better. If they have an actual underlying physiological condition, that will not improve. The patient will feel better - briefly - but they will not actually get better, and for something like a bacterial infection this is potentially fatal.
The problem with antibiotics, rather, is that you have to finish the entire run lest you'll end up merely training your infection to become resistant. So it's not strictly a problem of prescribing the stuff too often; it's that plus far too many people starting to feel fine then not finishing the cure.
Moreover, recent studies show that antibiotics kill a lot of the "good" bacteria in the gut, and it takes some time to recover, if at all. During that time, the patient is vulnerable to various other diseases. Some might even be caused by a lack of the right bacteria.
There are "balancing" antibiotics which are actually used for this purpose as well - two separate ones with different effects. I've been on them in fact, and it did wonders for some persistent issues I'd been having.
Phages are very bacteria specific though. You have to isolate one that infects that specific strain of bacteria, which is hard to do since there's a hell of a lot (they just all used to die to penicillin - hyperbolically speaking).
Maintaining a debt-state indefinietly is still a net drag on the economy. This is no different than a 20-something borrowing to maintain an extravagant lifestyle now based on their belief they'll get a promotion/raise before the debt comes due.
Actually it's very different, because a nation-state is functionally immortal and it's internal spending is more analogous to student loans.
Debt is not a net drag on the economy if the spending is invested in things which grow the GDP more then the debt.
Whereas cutting the debt can be a net drag on the economy if you cause GDP to contract in the process - which, it's worth nothing, is exactly what the sequestration is presently accomplishing via the cuts to various services such as customs inspections or inbound vehicles at the border or the more frequent closing of Yellowstone and the collapse of the tourist industries around there which depend on it.
The economies of nations are complex things which cannot be reduced to simple, paganistic morality plays.
The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military
Boy, argument is easy when you can just make up your own facts as needed. This is, of course, not even remotely true. Yes, the US outspends everybody else on military matters by a good margin (41% of the world's military spending in 2012 was US). But not by this amount. In fact, the next ten countries together spend almost as much as the US.
My mistake, you're right - it's more (by a few 10s of billions) then the next 10 countries put together.
And ~4-5x the amount China (as the next largest) spends.
As was my point though, which was that if you're going to spend that much then to be effective with it you commit yourself to some level of military hegemony because you need to exercise and test that aresenal under real-world conditions. US bases all over the world, for example, exist so the US can deploy commanders and troops in real combat conditions so if there ever is a big war you have people in your command-chain with experience of combat. Plenty of military disasters start with a large but untested fighting-force.
So, with that in mind, the US has an interest in intervening in Syria, beyond the obvious humanitarian concerns - especially in the wider tactical context, which is that the tempo and style of most operations the US would have to commit to will be these types of interventions, and not the Cold War style soviet-invasion of western europe.
Or as I was responding to, the US could choose to focus on domestic issues by choosing to reduce it's military funding to a level more commensurate with a force they don't plan to use, and relatively friendly borders.
The US can easily afford to keep borrowing every single year provided the rate of borrowing over time does not exceed the rate of increase in the GDP. Provided that remains true, the US government will always be able to afford the interest payments on debt and refinancing (that's not to say holding massive debts is not problematic, but it's a problem with volatility to market fluctuations) since tax receipts will increase to offset interest payments.
Keep the rate of borrowing below the increase in GDP, and over time the debt inflates away and reduces as a % of GDP.
There isn't a "we need to somehow eliminate all debt now!" crisis. There is a "stop spending on stupid shit which doesn't produce a return".
Presuming we have to do something in Syria to prevent a big crisis (which might embolden other actors - no matter how you slice it, Israel bombing Iran will be bad for everyone's interests since retaliation will hit the oil companies in the region), then the big thing would be "don't get tied up on the ground" - much like Libya - which worked out pretty well in the end, and was useful in the interests of keeping personnel combat-experienced in real operations.
Paying for that by cutting money from the speculative bullshit projects would be a decent trade.
Don't send in the troops. Enforce a no-fly zone and take away the government's big force multiplier against the rebels. Maybe punitive drone strikes against artillery and rockets which are sighted shelling civilian areas? Or just go in with drones with the express mission of removing chemical weapon stockpiles.
There are lots of options which aren't "Iraq 2.0" and Libya should demonstrate that the US military is easily capable of broad-restraint when the neo-cons aren't running the show.
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.
Unless you want to deploy the US military on US soil to do...something, then it is also worth noting that we can solve more then one problem at a time, and have different types of resources for different tasks.
The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military and can intervene to stop the blunt massacre of civilians and rise of a new dictatorship in Syria. If the US defunded most of it's military and put that money into say, trying to address domestic poverty, then that would be laudable too.
We might also recognize that most problems are inter-related and can't be fixed one at a time anyway, and it takes a collective effort on many fronts to make progress on any of them.
Nerds like chemistry. In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.
Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
Also in computer security, there's a lot of false-flag type attacks going on: in the modern day, something tends not to look obviously unsafe, but winds up being so (browsing the web "safely" shouldn't even be a problem, when you get down to it the browser should be keeping things thoroughly "on the web only").
The principle has always been good, but implementing it in a way where you can actually work with it has always been harder. Most systems that try to do this don't have a good answer to letting the user deal with it.
There are lots of pay for email providers, or you could just setup your own. Not exactly difficult to setup postfix and courier-imap on a box at rackspace for $10/month. You can use the same machine for lots of other stuff.
Mail servers are an utter pain to run though from what I hear - i.e. for outbound at least you have to deal with all the blacklisting and stuff which goes on due to spam.
Though outside of that the idea is appealing - I've long been thinking that I need to get a box hosted somewhere to act as a personal server for all types of things.
It's all in the wording as you note: the Coalitions policy is "upto 12mbps". The Labor policy is a minimum of 12mbps.
And that's to say nothing of upload speeds, which are far more important these days and have been historically neglected: my girlfriend can get 8mbps on her ADSL2, but 162 kbps upstream speed (about 1/5th of what it should be). Which makes using VOIP/Skype etc. on her connection nearly impossible.
That's of course when it's working at all: the copper in her walls or too her building seems to be degrading since we've found corrosion forming on the sockets themselves at times, so they're immersed in water somewhere else. Of course since she can get "upto 12mbps" nothing needs to change apparently!
Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.
I'm not seeing it. I bet the government would love it, though. That said, I don't care if the TSA actually was effective; I prefer freedom and privacy over safety any day.
Oh, and it's not necessary to have ubiquitous surveillance in order to capture police abuse on camera.
What exactly do you think the government is going to do with Google Glass that they can't already do?
Conversely, what do you think the average citizen is empowered to do when they have Google Glass or a smartphone camera or any other type of device? The democratization of people carrying cameras means they all have them and that's what's led to the ability to limit abuses of power by authorities because the information is distributed and diverse.
People keep throwing out "oh surveillance, it'll be a tool of oppression". How? Surveillance - by itself - does nothing. You have to act on it somehow.
Why do employers insist on having a perfect fit? And do they really think that if they can't get an American that there is some Third Workd person who will know their breakthrough - bleeding edge technology? really?
If you have trouble finding people, you really need to look at your hiring methods and get a reality check.
You hit the nail on the head at the top of your post. They're simply not that desperate. What they want are all those skills for as close to nothing as they can get it. If they actually needed to hire people, then they'd just go ahead and do it and salaries would be going through the roof since it's hardly a cash-poor sector.
Industries which desperately need people - say, oil geology - have had their salaries explode (though similarly it's precisely because they haven't been training anyone, just poaching off each other and yet the entire field is apparently aging pretty quickly now and will retiring soon - and they have no answer for who's going to replace them, because a whole bunch of industrial knowledge is going to retire with them).
An Airport Extreme though is one of the most affordable, well-featured Wi-fi base stations you can buy today though. Say what you will about their other products, but I've found nothing which meets those features at that price yet.
Aluminum-based solid oxide fuel is also a mis-type, it should be ammonium perchlorate (which has aluminum in it I think - IANARS). Got mixed up in thinking about oxides solid-oxide fuel cells:)
We live in an oxygen rich environment. There is oxygen everywhere. When something is left out in the open, it slowly oxidizes to some form of oxide.
Unless you have exceptionally specific, extreme circumstances, this means something which is at it's maximum oxidation state will not burn.
We do not live in a fluorine permeated atmosphere. We don't have accidental piles of trifluorochlorine lying around. Commercial rockets themselves are not run on reactive fluorine fuels. The failure mode of a rocket launching would be to combust in an oxygen atmosphere with liquid oxygen and kerosene fuels, or the aluminum-based solid oxide fuel.
So again: it's not "comically overbroad", you're being pedantic. Because fluorine and specifically trifluorochlorine is literally the only way that a maximally oxidized metal compound is going to "burn".
Where it's possible they already off-shore jobs. If it could be off-shored to India they'll do it.
The jobs which are here are the ones they can't move overseas, or, more usually, where they know the local talent is good and are trying to war the price down with imported labor that isn't actually as productive - which is exactly the same problem as in the US with H1Bs.
More importantly, the ability to import cheap foreign labor means a lot of businesses which should be employing graduates or running apprenticeship programs aren't. Which means allowing it to continue unchecked means Australia winds up being no more valuable then cheap foreign labor in the first place, which takes away the only thing we have going for us.
Given that my plan for my next smartphone (which will probably be an S4) has been to install a full version of Linux on it to replace using a laptop when travelling, I'm pretty happy about the 8 core processor.
I think you'll probably regret that decision.
An Asus Transformer, yes. That could replace a laptop, but an S4, I wouldn't think so. In my own personal experience, I find that a great smartphone is only complementary to a laptop (and not a complete replacement of it, even if you can run all kind of things on it).
I'm planning to try rolling with a pair of ST1080s for a wearable display and a foldable keyboard/wireless mouse so the whole kit can roll up into a nice little tube.
The S4 is nice because it's supposed to be able to do USB and HDMI out simultaneously, which would be required to make the setup work.
Hi, this is the parent of this particular topic parent which I started replying too:
If the vehicle burns up on launch or explodes at a low altitude there goes the county, launch facility, what have you. If it burn up in the upper atmosphere perhaps world wide cancer rates double or there goes any thing where the jet stream stears the fallout event for the next 6 months or so. So just saying... great for the space program though... parse... parse... ; )
See how we're talking about rockets there? See how the general article is talking about plutonium for RTG use.
Now all those things being apparent, can you perhaps see how a discussion on a very complex scenario where we intentionally try to make plutonium oxide burn is irrelevant - except - as I pointed out - if a rocket was actually using thousands of kilos of fluorine-based propellant. Which, as your link points out, they don't because although you can build an engine powered by it, handling fluorine in quantities like that is incredibly toxic in every possible capacity, environmentally devastating and not a currently used fuel in commercial launchers for all these reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Because the regulations weren't enforced we should clearly have no regulations ever!
Also all those laws about murder? Useless! Look at the people who get murdered each year. Anti-murder laws only encourage people to more carefully plan their murders!
I agree.
Scientists tend to dismiss the placebo effect. We should be studying it. Trying to understand the mechanisms behind it, instead of taking more potentially harmful substances into our bodies.
Medical scientists study the placebo effect all the time. It is one of the most highly studied phenomenons in medicine, we study it with every condition we search for a drug for.
The point of the placebo effect is that it is entirely psychological. It is not clinically real - it is not physiological. It's important because a great deal of medicine is asking how the patient feels to diagnose, but we also know that simply paying attention to people often makes them feel better. If they have an actual underlying physiological condition, that will not improve. The patient will feel better - briefly - but they will not actually get better, and for something like a bacterial infection this is potentially fatal.
The problem with antibiotics, rather, is that you have to finish the entire run lest you'll end up merely training your infection to become resistant. So it's not strictly a problem of prescribing the stuff too often; it's that plus far too many people starting to feel fine then not finishing the cure.
Moreover, recent studies show that antibiotics kill a lot of the "good" bacteria in the gut, and it takes some time to recover, if at all. During that time, the patient is vulnerable to various other diseases. Some might even be caused by a lack of the right bacteria.
See poop transplants
There are "balancing" antibiotics which are actually used for this purpose as well - two separate ones with different effects. I've been on them in fact, and it did wonders for some persistent issues I'd been having.
Have they tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfonamide_(medicine)
If not, Phage therapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
Good luck to your friend.
Phages are very bacteria specific though. You have to isolate one that infects that specific strain of bacteria, which is hard to do since there's a hell of a lot (they just all used to die to penicillin - hyperbolically speaking).
Maintaining a debt-state indefinietly is still a net drag on the economy. This is no different than a 20-something borrowing to maintain an extravagant lifestyle now based on their belief they'll get a promotion/raise before the debt comes due.
Actually it's very different, because a nation-state is functionally immortal and it's internal spending is more analogous to student loans.
Debt is not a net drag on the economy if the spending is invested in things which grow the GDP more then the debt.
Whereas cutting the debt can be a net drag on the economy if you cause GDP to contract in the process - which, it's worth nothing, is exactly what the sequestration is presently accomplishing via the cuts to various services such as customs inspections or inbound vehicles at the border or the more frequent closing of Yellowstone and the collapse of the tourist industries around there which depend on it.
The economies of nations are complex things which cannot be reduced to simple, paganistic morality plays.
Boy, argument is easy when you can just make up your own facts as needed. This is, of course, not even remotely true. Yes, the US outspends everybody else on military matters by a good margin (41% of the world's military spending in 2012 was US). But not by this amount. In fact, the next ten countries together spend almost as much as the US.
My mistake, you're right - it's more (by a few 10s of billions) then the next 10 countries put together.
And ~4-5x the amount China (as the next largest) spends.
As was my point though, which was that if you're going to spend that much then to be effective with it you commit yourself to some level of military hegemony because you need to exercise and test that aresenal under real-world conditions. US bases all over the world, for example, exist so the US can deploy commanders and troops in real combat conditions so if there ever is a big war you have people in your command-chain with experience of combat. Plenty of military disasters start with a large but untested fighting-force.
So, with that in mind, the US has an interest in intervening in Syria, beyond the obvious humanitarian concerns - especially in the wider tactical context, which is that the tempo and style of most operations the US would have to commit to will be these types of interventions, and not the Cold War style soviet-invasion of western europe.
Or as I was responding to, the US could choose to focus on domestic issues by choosing to reduce it's military funding to a level more commensurate with a force they don't plan to use, and relatively friendly borders.
The US can easily afford to keep borrowing every single year provided the rate of borrowing over time does not exceed the rate of increase in the GDP. Provided that remains true, the US government will always be able to afford the interest payments on debt and refinancing (that's not to say holding massive debts is not problematic, but it's a problem with volatility to market fluctuations) since tax receipts will increase to offset interest payments.
Keep the rate of borrowing below the increase in GDP, and over time the debt inflates away and reduces as a % of GDP.
There isn't a "we need to somehow eliminate all debt now!" crisis. There is a "stop spending on stupid shit which doesn't produce a return".
Presuming we have to do something in Syria to prevent a big crisis (which might embolden other actors - no matter how you slice it, Israel bombing Iran will be bad for everyone's interests since retaliation will hit the oil companies in the region), then the big thing would be "don't get tied up on the ground" - much like Libya - which worked out pretty well in the end, and was useful in the interests of keeping personnel combat-experienced in real operations.
Paying for that by cutting money from the speculative bullshit projects would be a decent trade.
Don't send in the troops. Enforce a no-fly zone and take away the government's big force multiplier against the rebels.
Maybe punitive drone strikes against artillery and rockets which are sighted shelling civilian areas?
Or just go in with drones with the express mission of removing chemical weapon stockpiles.
There are lots of options which aren't "Iraq 2.0" and Libya should demonstrate that the US military is easily capable of broad-restraint when the neo-cons aren't running the show.
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.
Unless you want to deploy the US military on US soil to do...something, then it is also worth noting that we can solve more then one problem at a time, and have different types of resources for different tasks.
The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military and can intervene to stop the blunt massacre of civilians and rise of a new dictatorship in Syria. If the US defunded most of it's military and put that money into say, trying to address domestic poverty, then that would be laudable too.
We might also recognize that most problems are inter-related and can't be fixed one at a time anyway, and it takes a collective effort on many fronts to make progress on any of them.
Nerds like chemistry.
In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.
Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?
Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.
Also in computer security, there's a lot of false-flag type attacks going on: in the modern day, something tends not to look obviously unsafe, but winds up being so (browsing the web "safely" shouldn't even be a problem, when you get down to it the browser should be keeping things thoroughly "on the web only").
The principle has always been good, but implementing it in a way where you can actually work with it has always been harder. Most systems that try to do this don't have a good answer to letting the user deal with it.
He never suggested you use google.
There are lots of pay for email providers, or you could just setup your own. Not exactly difficult to setup postfix and courier-imap on a box at rackspace for $10/month. You can use the same machine for lots of other stuff.
Mail servers are an utter pain to run though from what I hear - i.e. for outbound at least you have to deal with all the blacklisting and stuff which goes on due to spam.
Though outside of that the idea is appealing - I've long been thinking that I need to get a box hosted somewhere to act as a personal server for all types of things.
It's all in the wording as you note: the Coalitions policy is "upto 12mbps". The Labor policy is a minimum of 12mbps.
And that's to say nothing of upload speeds, which are far more important these days and have been historically neglected: my girlfriend can get 8mbps on her ADSL2, but 162 kbps upstream speed (about 1/5th of what it should be). Which makes using VOIP/Skype etc. on her connection nearly impossible.
That's of course when it's working at all: the copper in her walls or too her building seems to be degrading since we've found corrosion forming on the sockets themselves at times, so they're immersed in water somewhere else. Of course since she can get "upto 12mbps" nothing needs to change apparently!
Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.
I'm not seeing it. I bet the government would love it, though. That said, I don't care if the TSA actually was effective; I prefer freedom and privacy over safety any day.
Oh, and it's not necessary to have ubiquitous surveillance in order to capture police abuse on camera.
What exactly do you think the government is going to do with Google Glass that they can't already do?
Conversely, what do you think the average citizen is empowered to do when they have Google Glass or a smartphone camera or any other type of device? The democratization of people carrying cameras means they all have them and that's what's led to the ability to limit abuses of power by authorities because the information is distributed and diverse.
People keep throwing out "oh surveillance, it'll be a tool of oppression". How? Surveillance - by itself - does nothing. You have to act on it somehow.
You mean the non-existent damage from lower level heat emissions then day to day life?
Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.
"Oh no someone might get a picture of me looking stupid" versus everyone definitely getting a picture of police abuse.
Why do employers insist on having a perfect fit? And do they really think that if they can't get an American that there is some Third Workd person who will know their breakthrough - bleeding edge technology? really?
If you have trouble finding people, you really need to look at your hiring methods and get a reality check.
You hit the nail on the head at the top of your post. They're simply not that desperate. What they want are all those skills for as close to nothing as they can get it. If they actually needed to hire people, then they'd just go ahead and do it and salaries would be going through the roof since it's hardly a cash-poor sector.
Industries which desperately need people - say, oil geology - have had their salaries explode (though similarly it's precisely because they haven't been training anyone, just poaching off each other and yet the entire field is apparently aging pretty quickly now and will retiring soon - and they have no answer for who's going to replace them, because a whole bunch of industrial knowledge is going to retire with them).
"Experience" - perhaps meaning exposure to training, practical applications, the opportunity to work with projects in industry?
i.e. the types of things training and apprenticeships are setup - specifically - to provide to develop the skills of talented people.
An Airport Extreme though is one of the most affordable, well-featured Wi-fi base stations you can buy today though. Say what you will about their other products, but I've found nothing which meets those features at that price yet.
Aluminum-based solid oxide fuel is also a mis-type, it should be ammonium perchlorate (which has aluminum in it I think - IANARS). Got mixed up in thinking about oxides solid-oxide fuel cells :)
Ok. Let's deal with overbroad:
We live in an oxygen rich environment. There is oxygen everywhere. When something is left out in the open, it slowly oxidizes to some form of oxide.
Unless you have exceptionally specific, extreme circumstances, this means something which is at it's maximum oxidation state will not burn.
We do not live in a fluorine permeated atmosphere. We don't have accidental piles of trifluorochlorine lying around. Commercial rockets themselves are not run on reactive fluorine fuels. The failure mode of a rocket launching would be to combust in an oxygen atmosphere with liquid oxygen and kerosene fuels, or the aluminum-based solid oxide fuel.
So again: it's not "comically overbroad", you're being pedantic. Because fluorine and specifically trifluorochlorine is literally the only way that a maximally oxidized metal compound is going to "burn".
Where it's possible they already off-shore jobs. If it could be off-shored to India they'll do it.
The jobs which are here are the ones they can't move overseas, or, more usually, where they know the local talent is good and are trying to war the price down with imported labor that isn't actually as productive - which is exactly the same problem as in the US with H1Bs.
More importantly, the ability to import cheap foreign labor means a lot of businesses which should be employing graduates or running apprenticeship programs aren't. Which means allowing it to continue unchecked means Australia winds up being no more valuable then cheap foreign labor in the first place, which takes away the only thing we have going for us.
Given that my plan for my next smartphone (which will probably be an S4) has been to install a full version of Linux on it to replace using a laptop when travelling, I'm pretty happy about the 8 core processor.
I think you'll probably regret that decision.
An Asus Transformer, yes. That could replace a laptop, but an S4, I wouldn't think so. In my own personal experience, I find that a great smartphone is only complementary to a laptop (and not a complete replacement of it, even if you can run all kind of things on it).
I'm planning to try rolling with a pair of ST1080s for a wearable display and a foldable keyboard/wireless mouse so the whole kit can roll up into a nice little tube.
The S4 is nice because it's supposed to be able to do USB and HDMI out simultaneously, which would be required to make the setup work.
Hi, this is the parent of this particular topic parent which I started replying too:
If the vehicle burns up on launch or explodes at a low altitude there goes the county, launch facility, what have you.
If it burn up in the upper atmosphere perhaps world wide cancer rates double or there goes any thing where the jet stream stears the fallout event for the next 6 months or so. So just saying... great for the space program though... parse... parse... ; )
See how we're talking about rockets there? See how the general article is talking about plutonium for RTG use.
Now all those things being apparent, can you perhaps see how a discussion on a very complex scenario where we intentionally try to make plutonium oxide burn is irrelevant - except - as I pointed out - if a rocket was actually using thousands of kilos of fluorine-based propellant. Which, as your link points out, they don't because although you can build an engine powered by it, handling fluorine in quantities like that is incredibly toxic in every possible capacity, environmentally devastating and not a currently used fuel in commercial launchers for all these reasons.