And I would of pulled it out if somebody objected to my including China's annual coal worker death toll in the coal numbers. If they get to throw out China because they're primitive/unsafe/commies, well, I should get to throw out Chernobyl for the same reason.
I instead concentrated on a couple ways(out of dozens) that US(and most of the rest of the world) reactors are far safer than USSR ones.
Yes, there have been deaths in the nuclear power industry. The problem comes from having to point out that they're comparing the lifetime of nuclear power, to frequently include military applications and experimental reactors in the early days, along with horror stories and 'what ifs', compared to the relativly solid data on annual coal deaths(though, just like the '9000 may eventually die from cancers spawned by the Chernobyl radiation release' figure, it's up for argument by orders of magnitude.
On the other hand, sick days and illness rate changes from smog/air pollution can be tracked fairly well.
iamlucky13 is pretty much spot on. However, there's a couple points that he missed. There are substances that can be used to absorb the radiation without becoming radioactive themselves, even with neutron bombardment.
For example, plain water can aborb quite a shocking amount of it without becoming any more radioactive. That's part of why it's a popular shielding/cooling material.
As for the rest of it, they keep extending the life of current reactors, because they can produce so much power so cheaply. Finally, there's a huge difference between the reactors currently in operation and the designs we have today. If we were to build new reactors, they would be built safer and far more efficient than the old ones. Without greenpeace FUD, they'd likely be even cheaper for the capacity.
Add in how the Price-Anderson act works, and the more reactors you have, the more money is available in case of a disaster.
But seriously now, I've heard that the nuclear industry gets similar government rebates - can anyone quantify this? I suppose future governments having to deal with the waste could be seen as a government subsidy..
At least in the USA, all the government does for them is act as a forth level insurance underwriter. And they haven't had to pay out since TMI. It's the Price-Anderson act.
For 'cheap' incidents the companies insure themselves. For medium level events, like $300 million right now, they have individual insurance. After that, all the nuke reactor owners each pay $95.8 million($8.6 billion total), and the government still hasn't paid a dime. It's only after $8.9 Billion is paid by the nuclear industry that it's call a disaster and the federal government steps in.
Oh, and the $300 Million insurance only costs $400k a year..13%, not a bad charge.
Who's going to make the choice to pay about 30% more for energy?
The same people who went out and bought hybrids the first year they came out and such?
People make uneconomical decisions all the time. Frankly, given that the total possible amount of 'cow power' is limited, keeping it a limited market is a good idea. Cow manure should be carbon neutral and such, hopefully it's burned clean, etc... But it's still limited market.
How's it a tax? You're making a market decision. You can buy the bargain, cut rate 'power' from 'dirty' sources such as coal, nuclear, and hydro, or you can buy 'premium clean power' at.04 more than cut rate.
It's like buying LandoLakes's brand milk, or organic eggs or whatever versus store brand. You pay more, but most people can't tell the difference.
As others have said, reactors built today won't meltdown even at a rate of "one meltdown per 1000 years". Even if they did, there are far more containment structures in place to prevent it from getting off the plant grounds.
TMI was the USA scare that got us to pay more attention to disaster scenarios. Even IF we had a Chernobyl type explosion in the states, it wouldn't be the big deal it was in Chernobyl since all nuclear reactors are covered by a pressure rated dome. Basically, they're pre-enclosed in a sarcophagus already.
Basically, even with Chernobyl you can argue that coal has killed more people.
Nuclear Power deaths: 3 Japanese workers* Chernobyl: 47 workers/accident responders, 9 children died of thyroid cancer, and IAEA/WHO estimate that 9000 more might die of cancer. Please excuse me for not using Greenpeace numbers, as they are both biased and known to exaggerate. 9000, in the last 20 years.
Let's take a look at coal. Wiki says:2004 alone cost China 6,000 workers, though some estimate as high as 20,000. US Coal mining is far safer, with only about 30 deaths/year. Still, we have yet to cover the health effects. 23,600 per year due to air pollution, in the USA alone.
If you figure 1 nuclear meltdown/worst case disaster every thousand years, that kills the same # as chernobyl, that's an average annual death toll of 9 people. Meanwhile, coal mining in the US kills 30, even if you figure in that pollution controls eventually stops all the air pollution.
There's a reason I'd love to shut down every coal plant and replace it with a nuclear one. Preferably breeders that allow us to take all the 'waste' piling up around current reactors and burn it as more fuel again.
*who violated every safety reg in the book, mixing many times the amount of nuclear materials in a steel bucket rather than using the provided shielded equipment meant to do it in limited, but safe, quantities.
It's too bad landfills are so cheap here in the US.
But that's the point. At least in the USA, they became so paranoid about possible contamination that the required power-washing and sanitization cost more than just making a new plastic/paper container. Add in the energy cost of making the glass bottle, and it makes even more sense.
However, I'll admit that oil for plastics is becoming more expensive, and we've developed far more efficient methods of cleaning materials. Using filters and heat exchangers for one.
And, of course, you'd still have the problem of butthead losers deciding to turn in a bottle filled with some poison or nasty substance. People are paranoid about this stuff here.
These days, pirates operate with small speedboats. As they can't load much stuff into those boats, they take over the entire ship instead, paint some new name on it, sail it to some port that isn't too picky about documents and procedures, sell the cargo and perhaps the ship too.
True, modern pirates mostly operate from small craft such as speedboats. As for taking over the entire ship, they can only really do that with the smaller ships such as yachts. It does happen which is why smart yacht owners have weapons hidden somewhere on their ship. Frequently such ships are turned into drug-running ships.
As for the larger craft, well, they mostly too large for pirates to go after, and when they do manage to get aboard, it ends up being minor theft. A couple incidents happened last year with pirates attempting to take cruise ships, but they universally failed. However, container transports don't have anywhere near the number of crew, so the pirates do succeed occasionally
Bigger craft, such as a supertanker or container transport, are just too huge too loose, and there aren't any convenient ports around that can unload the ship(much less eradicate it's markings and sell it) before somebody's navy comes calling.
And is this service cheaper per gallon/liter/whatever than buying milk bulk in the plastic jug? 'Tastes better' is not necessarily a core selling point.
An extra buck per gallon isn't going to mean no sales, but it will mean limited market in the USA, at least.
Note, in some states 'home schooling' is not an option. By law children MUST attend school.
On the other hand, this sounds like a great time for a group of students to come up with a massive RPG conspiricy. Codewords, everything. They check cell phone, trigger massive investigation, do all sorts of things, then it gets into the paper that all students involved are lily white, and suing the school district.
The best cure for this kind of stuff is parental involvment, massive loads of it.
It's unclear that war/privateers and piracy are much of a problem crossing the Pacific right now.
Not in the Pacific, but there's issues in the caribbean, around Africa(Somolia), and certain sections of the middle east.
What protects the giant cargo ships is that they're so big it'd take a ship of equal size to steal the cargo, and even pirates could get ahold of a ship that size, it'd be rather trivial to track by satellite, and most of the navies of the world consider pirate suppression part of their core duties. If there's nothing else more important going on, even an American Aircraft carrier will divert to chase suspected pirates.
Most pirates today mostly steal the crew's effects, maybe part of a container, and sometimes take the crew hostage for ransoms.
You don't hear much about it, but cruise liners, which you'd think would be tempting targets, are also among the fastest, especially when they turn all the engines up. With the smaller boats pirates tend to use, they either lack the speed or the endurance to catch them. Even if they do, it has a huge crew that's also trained(and armed) to keep pirates from getting aboard. That and the moment they spot pirates they'll be calling for help, and remember how I mentioned most navies like catching pirates? Pirates chasing a cruise liner will have every naval asset that has a prayer of intercepting will be applying full power to the engines.
there is no technical reason why a store could not have a sanitary 2-liter filling station where you just take the same bottle over and over to obtain your beverage of choice. This would actually be less expensive in the long run, but it would cost people who make bottles their jobs, etc. etc.
Actually there is. Well, it's not a technical reason, but a sanitary reason. Heath codes/standards, especially with concerns about people possibly deliberatly tainting stuff, rose to the point that the required cleaning/powerwashing/sterilizing to reuse containters costs more energy than the oil that that utterly cheap containers we use today. There are some places where you can refill filtered water though. It wouldn't be an unworkable idea to refill all your milk/soda/tea/juices at the store, but even if you had everyone bring their own containers, you'd have to worry about rotating, cleaning&sanitizing the various taps.
Again, remember that cost does not necessarily match with waste. In fact, generally less expensive alternatives cost less than their less-wasteful alternatives - at the initial investment stage. However, the long-term costs are always lower with less waste. It can depend, actually. Sometimes the capital costs of a 'less wastefull solution' are such that you'll never make back the investment.
Step 1: Create crash program to develop people mover replacement for shuttle. It should have only limited cargo capacity. Currently I'm leaning towards an apollo/Soyuz type system, though a small spaceplane might also work. Dusting off some of the canceled replacements for the shuttle wouldn't be a bad idea, assuming they weren't canceled because they were turning out to have worse problems than the shuttle. New materials technology can help there. Step 2: Launch things such as satellites and space station components/supplies with dedicated, unmanned rockets. Step 3: Say the heck with the ISS, put up a new station in a better orbit for us. Or at least finish the ISS, get a dedicated escape vessel or three so we can actually use the thing for the amount of research it was intended for. Don't send anything down that you don't have to. It costs too much to send stuff up. Start work on designing a zero-g hydroponics(or aeroponics, or whatever) module, as well as a 'solar furnace' module to recycle materials, even if only as additional shielding at first. Step 4: Want to service the hubble/other satellite? Send up a mobile 'space servicer' that's mobile, but not intended for reentry, though making it emergency capable of such wouldn't be a bad idea. It's serviced and launched from a space station. Replacement parts, if possible, are sent up with the routine resupply missions.
There were space stations before ISS. Skylab, for example was launched in 1973. The shuttle didn't launch for the first time until 1981
Given the history of shuttle costs, it would have been far more efficient to just launch more space stations occasionally.
For example, we could of had 5 years experience with skylab, spent 3 years designing a better one and launched that at the same time as the shuttle would have launched for the first time. Then launch a new one every ten years or so.
At the same time, redesign and update the capsules to launch from.
Violence has it's place, especially for people's defense of their bodies and rights, and the exact form that violence takes doesn't really matter that much. Same with military matters. When you decide to use violence, you should use as much of it as you need/can.
Sure, Mr Oleg's site is a little abrubt, but I'll fully admit that it's trying to get you to a certain conclusion.
Hint: Mr. Oleg is a Jewish immigrant from Russia. He knows very well what an unrestrained state can do. The usage of firearms to deter crime is almost a side benefit.
Actually, the US will continue to use persistant mines until 2010 Yeah, for the korean border. That's not going away any time soon.
And the link in your sig has a serious collection of strawman arguments
Really, strawman how? Firearms are one of the best methods to deter attackers. Most of the time you don't even have to pull the trigger.
As for arguing 'you're more likely to be shot with your own gun', that study was seriously flawed in that it counted many cases where the guns were illegal, where the perpetrator came with his own weapon, yet it was still included in the stats, suicides were included, etc... I've had training, I believe in gunproofing children(yes, I have a safe). This means you teach them gun safety early on.
And you don't think that a taser, which shoots out two electrified probes wouldn't 'ruin' an expensive leather jacket? Heck, pepper spray can stain, especially some mixes that deliberatly include a dye to help police identify the assaulter who was pepper sprayed to get him to stop.
If the police were justified in shooting him with a taser/tangling net/pepper spray, the courts will rule that the cost is to be born by him. It's usually actual injury that juries make police departments pay for.
As for damaging the coat, depending upon what the glue is, there'd ideally be a kit to dissolve it back in the station, or even in the police car. If he continues to struggle, don't bother removing the net. Matter of fact, there should be at least a partial kit with the officer, if only to ensure that the airways remain clear.
Finally, if an officer does make a bad shoot and somebody's clothes get damaged, well, even a thosand bucks is a bit on the high side for a good leather jacket, and that's cheap compared to most medical expenses.
Where did shooting at the police come in? Somebody proposed a tangling net launcher, somebody else asked why a taser wouldn't work, and I responded. For that matter the TNL proposer was talking about shooting it at idiots before PHBs(Pointy Haired Boss, from dilbert) were impressed by the idiotic idea the idiot was proposing.
Police are allowed to use lethal force quite quickly, and in some districts, I feel too easily. I think that police, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard when it comes to 'accidental discharges'. Do you really need the SWAT team to charge in with fingers on triggers for a optometrist moonlighting as a bookie?
My suggestion to add glue to the package is for that little extra bit of effectivness. The person isn't getting out without a lot of work and assistance, though it shouldn't be too hard back at the station with an agent to dissolve the glue and maybe even the strands.
No need for the SS to come by. I view this president as being an enforcer. If some people 'just need killing', well, somebody has to do it. Saddam and Osama have both demonstrated a lack of willingness to leave others alone, and domestic forces were unable or unwilling to remove them. Thus we had to do it.
How can you talk about the rules of society and justify mines in the same sentence?
Because, properly used, which is NOT as weapons of terror to be randomly scattered around, they're an effective tool in military arsenals. As in I know US doctrine in using them. They're an area denial tool. And yes, we do clean them up when we don't need them anymore. We also tend to mark area where we've laid them to keep the civilians out. It tends to warn the enemy, but like others have said, it's used as a barrier. Either the enemy goes around, sits there demining, or is forced to accept the casualties of forcing their way through.
it's all destruction and killing and just plain bad.
Not everybody believes that destruction and killing is 'just plain bad'. You see, I feel that there are people on this world that 'just need killing', mostly because they won't play by the rules of society and let others live their own lives.
As for destruction, well, we destroy buildings all the time to make way for new, it's kinda a cycle of life thing.
In the pursuit of war, you seek to kill/destroy as much of the enemy as possible while keeping your own forces intact. In that scenario, mines actually tend to be defensive weapons, as they're planted on territory you're on, in the hope that the enemy will come by and trigger them. It's really difficult to hit a defensive enemy with mines, though it can be done with guerilla forces sneaking around.
First, a taser doesn't penetrate thick clothing. That guy wearing an insulated leather jacket? Don't bother aiming for the chest area. Second, a taser's effectivness is relativly short lived. Many people are capable of action within seconds of the end of the pulses.
Hitting somebody with a tangling net, preferably laced with a fast setting glue, would immobalize them for quite some time.
And the mines are mentioned in the article aren't of the 'fire and forget' variety. You're going to be keeping careful track of these suckers, and they can be shut off very easily for clearing.
The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.
And you're an expert able to tell this how? We're at war and have infiltrators domestically, international wiretaps and information gathering help to find an enemy that doesn't appear in public. Advanced data interpritation can help in this, and is part of what we're good at.
That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian damage landmines have caused. I've been to towns in Cambodia where close to half of the inhabitants were missing limbs from old landmines. I'm given to understand that similar conditions exist in parts of Africa.
And how many killings have you heard about with bladed weapons? There are areas with huge problems of people killing each other with blades.
My point is that the people that laid down land mines in those areas tend to be irresponsable with anything that can be a weapon, and landmines are not hard to make. A bit of explosive and a physical trigger/detonator. Something as simple as a primer, firing pin and spring pressed against an explosive. A shotgun shell can be made into a trap with minimal effort.
Slashdot Mirror
And I would of pulled it out if somebody objected to my including China's annual coal worker death toll in the coal numbers. If they get to throw out China because they're primitive/unsafe/commies, well, I should get to throw out Chernobyl for the same reason.
I instead concentrated on a couple ways(out of dozens) that US(and most of the rest of the world) reactors are far safer than USSR ones.
Yes, there have been deaths in the nuclear power industry. The problem comes from having to point out that they're comparing the lifetime of nuclear power, to frequently include military applications and experimental reactors in the early days, along with horror stories and 'what ifs', compared to the relativly solid data on annual coal deaths(though, just like the '9000 may eventually die from cancers spawned by the Chernobyl radiation release' figure, it's up for argument by orders of magnitude.
On the other hand, sick days and illness rate changes from smog/air pollution can be tracked fairly well.
iamlucky13 is pretty much spot on. However, there's a couple points that he missed. There are substances that can be used to absorb the radiation without becoming radioactive themselves, even with neutron bombardment.
For example, plain water can aborb quite a shocking amount of it without becoming any more radioactive. That's part of why it's a popular shielding/cooling material.
As for the rest of it, they keep extending the life of current reactors, because they can produce so much power so cheaply. Finally, there's a huge difference between the reactors currently in operation and the designs we have today. If we were to build new reactors, they would be built safer and far more efficient than the old ones. Without greenpeace FUD, they'd likely be even cheaper for the capacity.
Add in how the Price-Anderson act works, and the more reactors you have, the more money is available in case of a disaster.
But seriously now, I've heard that the nuclear industry gets similar government rebates - can anyone quantify this? I suppose future governments having to deal with the waste could be seen as a government subsidy..
.13%, not a bad charge.
At least in the USA, all the government does for them is act as a forth level insurance underwriter. And they haven't had to pay out since TMI. It's the Price-Anderson act.
For 'cheap' incidents the companies insure themselves. For medium level events, like $300 million right now, they have individual insurance. After that, all the nuke reactor owners each pay $95.8 million($8.6 billion total), and the government still hasn't paid a dime. It's only after $8.9 Billion is paid by the nuclear industry that it's call a disaster and the federal government steps in.
Oh, and the $300 Million insurance only costs $400k a year.
Who's going to make the choice to pay about 30% more for energy?
The same people who went out and bought hybrids the first year they came out and such?
People make uneconomical decisions all the time. Frankly, given that the total possible amount of 'cow power' is limited, keeping it a limited market is a good idea. Cow manure should be carbon neutral and such, hopefully it's burned clean, etc... But it's still limited market.
How's it a tax? You're making a market decision. You can buy the bargain, cut rate 'power' from 'dirty' sources such as coal, nuclear, and hydro, or you can buy 'premium clean power' at .04 more than cut rate.
It's like buying LandoLakes's brand milk, or organic eggs or whatever versus store brand. You pay more, but most people can't tell the difference.
As others have said, reactors built today won't meltdown even at a rate of "one meltdown per 1000 years". Even if they did, there are far more containment structures in place to prevent it from getting off the plant grounds.
TMI was the USA scare that got us to pay more attention to disaster scenarios. Even IF we had a Chernobyl type explosion in the states, it wouldn't be the big deal it was in Chernobyl since all nuclear reactors are covered by a pressure rated dome. Basically, they're pre-enclosed in a sarcophagus already.
Basically, even with Chernobyl you can argue that coal has killed more people.
Nuclear Power deaths: 3 Japanese workers*
Chernobyl: 47 workers/accident responders, 9 children died of thyroid cancer, and IAEA/WHO estimate that 9000 more might die of cancer. Please excuse me for not using Greenpeace numbers, as they are both biased and known to exaggerate. 9000, in the last 20 years.
Let's take a look at coal.
Wiki says:2004 alone cost China 6,000 workers, though some estimate as high as 20,000. US Coal mining is far safer, with only about 30 deaths/year. Still, we have yet to cover the health effects. 23,600 per year due to air pollution, in the USA alone.
If you figure 1 nuclear meltdown/worst case disaster every thousand years, that kills the same # as chernobyl, that's an average annual death toll of 9 people. Meanwhile, coal mining in the US kills 30, even if you figure in that pollution controls eventually stops all the air pollution.
There's a reason I'd love to shut down every coal plant and replace it with a nuclear one. Preferably breeders that allow us to take all the 'waste' piling up around current reactors and burn it as more fuel again.
*who violated every safety reg in the book, mixing many times the amount of nuclear materials in a steel bucket rather than using the provided shielded equipment meant to do it in limited, but safe, quantities.
It's too bad landfills are so cheap here in the US.
But that's the point. At least in the USA, they became so paranoid about possible contamination that the required power-washing and sanitization cost more than just making a new plastic/paper container. Add in the energy cost of making the glass bottle, and it makes even more sense.
However, I'll admit that oil for plastics is becoming more expensive, and we've developed far more efficient methods of cleaning materials. Using filters and heat exchangers for one.
And, of course, you'd still have the problem of butthead losers deciding to turn in a bottle filled with some poison or nasty substance. People are paranoid about this stuff here.
True, modern pirates mostly operate from small craft such as speedboats. As for taking over the entire ship, they can only really do that with the smaller ships such as yachts. It does happen which is why smart yacht owners have weapons hidden somewhere on their ship. Frequently such ships are turned into drug-running ships.
As for the larger craft, well, they mostly too large for pirates to go after, and when they do manage to get aboard, it ends up being minor theft. A couple incidents happened last year with pirates attempting to take cruise ships, but they universally failed. However, container transports don't have anywhere near the number of crew, so the pirates do succeed occasionally
Bigger craft, such as a supertanker or container transport, are just too huge too loose, and there aren't any convenient ports around that can unload the ship(much less eradicate it's markings and sell it) before somebody's navy comes calling.
And is this service cheaper per gallon/liter/whatever than buying milk bulk in the plastic jug? 'Tastes better' is not necessarily a core selling point.
An extra buck per gallon isn't going to mean no sales, but it will mean limited market in the USA, at least.
Note, in some states 'home schooling' is not an option. By law children MUST attend school.
On the other hand, this sounds like a great time for a group of students to come up with a massive RPG conspiricy. Codewords, everything. They check cell phone, trigger massive investigation, do all sorts of things, then it gets into the paper that all students involved are lily white, and suing the school district.
The best cure for this kind of stuff is parental involvment, massive loads of it.
It's unclear that war/privateers and piracy are much of a problem crossing the Pacific right now.
Not in the Pacific, but there's issues in the caribbean, around Africa(Somolia), and certain sections of the middle east.
What protects the giant cargo ships is that they're so big it'd take a ship of equal size to steal the cargo, and even pirates could get ahold of a ship that size, it'd be rather trivial to track by satellite, and most of the navies of the world consider pirate suppression part of their core duties. If there's nothing else more important going on, even an American Aircraft carrier will divert to chase suspected pirates.
Most pirates today mostly steal the crew's effects, maybe part of a container, and sometimes take the crew hostage for ransoms.
You don't hear much about it, but cruise liners, which you'd think would be tempting targets, are also among the fastest, especially when they turn all the engines up. With the smaller boats pirates tend to use, they either lack the speed or the endurance to catch them. Even if they do, it has a huge crew that's also trained(and armed) to keep pirates from getting aboard. That and the moment they spot pirates they'll be calling for help, and remember how I mentioned most navies like catching pirates? Pirates chasing a cruise liner will have every naval asset that has a prayer of intercepting will be applying full power to the engines.
there is no technical reason why a store could not have a sanitary 2-liter filling station where you just take the same bottle over and over to obtain your beverage of choice. This would actually be less expensive in the long run, but it would cost people who make bottles their jobs, etc. etc.
Actually there is. Well, it's not a technical reason, but a sanitary reason. Heath codes/standards, especially with concerns about people possibly deliberatly tainting stuff, rose to the point that the required cleaning/powerwashing/sterilizing to reuse containters costs more energy than the oil that that utterly cheap containers we use today. There are some places where you can refill filtered water though. It wouldn't be an unworkable idea to refill all your milk/soda/tea/juices at the store, but even if you had everyone bring their own containers, you'd have to worry about rotating, cleaning&sanitizing the various taps.
Again, remember that cost does not necessarily match with waste. In fact, generally less expensive alternatives cost less than their less-wasteful alternatives - at the initial investment stage. However, the long-term costs are always lower with less waste.
It can depend, actually. Sometimes the capital costs of a 'less wastefull solution' are such that you'll never make back the investment.
Okay, my quick version of what should be done:
Step 1: Create crash program to develop people mover replacement for shuttle. It should have only limited cargo capacity. Currently I'm leaning towards an apollo/Soyuz type system, though a small spaceplane might also work. Dusting off some of the canceled replacements for the shuttle wouldn't be a bad idea, assuming they weren't canceled because they were turning out to have worse problems than the shuttle. New materials technology can help there.
Step 2: Launch things such as satellites and space station components/supplies with dedicated, unmanned rockets.
Step 3: Say the heck with the ISS, put up a new station in a better orbit for us. Or at least finish the ISS, get a dedicated escape vessel or three so we can actually use the thing for the amount of research it was intended for. Don't send anything down that you don't have to. It costs too much to send stuff up. Start work on designing a zero-g hydroponics(or aeroponics, or whatever) module, as well as a 'solar furnace' module to recycle materials, even if only as additional shielding at first.
Step 4: Want to service the hubble/other satellite? Send up a mobile 'space servicer' that's mobile, but not intended for reentry, though making it emergency capable of such wouldn't be a bad idea. It's serviced and launched from a space station. Replacement parts, if possible, are sent up with the routine resupply missions.
There were space stations before ISS. Skylab, for example was launched in 1973. The shuttle didn't launch for the first time until 1981
Given the history of shuttle costs, it would have been far more efficient to just launch more space stations occasionally.
For example, we could of had 5 years experience with skylab, spent 3 years designing a better one and launched that at the same time as the shuttle would have launched for the first time. Then launch a new one every ten years or so.
At the same time, redesign and update the capsules to launch from.
Here's my worldview:
Violence has it's place, especially for people's defense of their bodies and rights, and the exact form that violence takes doesn't really matter that much. Same with military matters. When you decide to use violence, you should use as much of it as you need/can.
Sure, Mr Oleg's site is a little abrubt, but I'll fully admit that it's trying to get you to a certain conclusion.
Hint: Mr. Oleg is a Jewish immigrant from Russia. He knows very well what an unrestrained state can do. The usage of firearms to deter crime is almost a side benefit.
Actually, the US will continue to use persistant mines until 2010
Yeah, for the korean border. That's not going away any time soon.
And the link in your sig has a serious collection of strawman arguments
Really, strawman how? Firearms are one of the best methods to deter attackers. Most of the time you don't even have to pull the trigger.
As for arguing 'you're more likely to be shot with your own gun', that study was seriously flawed in that it counted many cases where the guns were illegal, where the perpetrator came with his own weapon, yet it was still included in the stats, suicides were included, etc... I've had training, I believe in gunproofing children(yes, I have a safe). This means you teach them gun safety early on.
Like the other AC I'll pick:
D: Learn to shoot.
Besides, I hardly ever carry more than 16 rounds for my carry firearm, so it'd be a tad difficult to shoot 600.
Hell, I'd have to reload magazines for my AR to shoot 600, I only have 10 30 round mags.
CCW holders have a lower rate of shooting innocents than the police.
And you don't think that a taser, which shoots out two electrified probes wouldn't 'ruin' an expensive leather jacket? Heck, pepper spray can stain, especially some mixes that deliberatly include a dye to help police identify the assaulter who was pepper sprayed to get him to stop.
If the police were justified in shooting him with a taser/tangling net/pepper spray, the courts will rule that the cost is to be born by him. It's usually actual injury that juries make police departments pay for.
As for damaging the coat, depending upon what the glue is, there'd ideally be a kit to dissolve it back in the station, or even in the police car. If he continues to struggle, don't bother removing the net. Matter of fact, there should be at least a partial kit with the officer, if only to ensure that the airways remain clear.
Finally, if an officer does make a bad shoot and somebody's clothes get damaged, well, even a thosand bucks is a bit on the high side for a good leather jacket, and that's cheap compared to most medical expenses.
Where did shooting at the police come in? Somebody proposed a tangling net launcher, somebody else asked why a taser wouldn't work, and I responded. For that matter the TNL proposer was talking about shooting it at idiots before PHBs(Pointy Haired Boss, from dilbert) were impressed by the idiotic idea the idiot was proposing.
Police are allowed to use lethal force quite quickly, and in some districts, I feel too easily. I think that police, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard when it comes to 'accidental discharges'. Do you really need the SWAT team to charge in with fingers on triggers for a optometrist moonlighting as a bookie?
My suggestion to add glue to the package is for that little extra bit of effectivness. The person isn't getting out without a lot of work and assistance, though it shouldn't be too hard back at the station with an agent to dissolve the glue and maybe even the strands.
No need for the SS to come by. I view this president as being an enforcer. If some people 'just need killing', well, somebody has to do it. Saddam and Osama have both demonstrated a lack of willingness to leave others alone, and domestic forces were unable or unwilling to remove them. Thus we had to do it.
How can you talk about the rules of society and justify mines in the same sentence?
Because, properly used, which is NOT as weapons of terror to be randomly scattered around, they're an effective tool in military arsenals. As in I know US doctrine in using them. They're an area denial tool. And yes, we do clean them up when we don't need them anymore. We also tend to mark area where we've laid them to keep the civilians out. It tends to warn the enemy, but like others have said, it's used as a barrier. Either the enemy goes around, sits there demining, or is forced to accept the casualties of forcing their way through.
it's all destruction and killing and just plain bad.
Not everybody believes that destruction and killing is 'just plain bad'. You see, I feel that there are people on this world that 'just need killing', mostly because they won't play by the rules of society and let others live their own lives.
As for destruction, well, we destroy buildings all the time to make way for new, it's kinda a cycle of life thing.
In the pursuit of war, you seek to kill/destroy as much of the enemy as possible while keeping your own forces intact. In that scenario, mines actually tend to be defensive weapons, as they're planted on territory you're on, in the hope that the enemy will come by and trigger them. It's really difficult to hit a defensive enemy with mines, though it can be done with guerilla forces sneaking around.
what's wrong with a taser?
First, a taser doesn't penetrate thick clothing. That guy wearing an insulated leather jacket? Don't bother aiming for the chest area.
Second, a taser's effectivness is relativly short lived. Many people are capable of action within seconds of the end of the pulses.
Hitting somebody with a tangling net, preferably laced with a fast setting glue, would immobalize them for quite some time.
And the mines are mentioned in the article aren't of the 'fire and forget' variety. You're going to be keeping careful track of these suckers, and they can be shut off very easily for clearing.
The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.
And you're an expert able to tell this how? We're at war and have infiltrators domestically, international wiretaps and information gathering help to find an enemy that doesn't appear in public. Advanced data interpritation can help in this, and is part of what we're good at.
That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian damage landmines have caused. I've been to towns in Cambodia where close to half of the inhabitants were missing limbs from old landmines. I'm given to understand that similar conditions exist in parts of Africa.
And how many killings have you heard about with bladed weapons? There are areas with huge problems of people killing each other with blades.
My point is that the people that laid down land mines in those areas tend to be irresponsable with anything that can be a weapon, and landmines are not hard to make. A bit of explosive and a physical trigger/detonator. Something as simple as a primer, firing pin and spring pressed against an explosive. A shotgun shell can be made into a trap with minimal effort.