Soyuz has a rock solid safety record and is much more versatile.
If by "soyuz", you mean the manned vehicle, it has had two loss-of-crew accidents, and about ten mission failures where the crew survived. In 120 flights.
As opposed to Shuttle's two loss-of-crew accidents and zero mission failures where the crew survived. In 135 flights.
So, no, Soyuz does NOT have a "rock solid safety record".
Nor is Soyuz more versatile than Dragon. Smaller payload, in both men and cargo, and lower deltaV (and lack of reusability) do not make for "more versatile".
The only thing that Soyuz has on Dragon is that it has completed the man-rating part. Of course, with a 50 year head start, we'd expect that as a matter of course.
What you are proposing is that the Government can step right it, declare your backyard a nuclear waste repo and all their industry lobyist can dump toxic shit there because it's "a national emergency".
They can. It's called "eminent domain". It's the process any government uses to seize private property....
Why wouldn't a road roller be able to find them by detonating them, while remaining safe to operate and reusable? Seems odd to me that a "small" anti-personnel mine would destroy a 50,000 lb armored steamroller.
What you're describing was developed as a mine-clearance variant of the Sherman tank in WW2. Actually, several variants (one big roller, several smaller rollers, etc).
It's useful, but too easy to counter. Set one mine in twenty to delayed detonation, and you lose a lot of mine clearance vehicles.
By your reasoning the US would have to be way cheaper.
Umm, no. It's way more expensive to run miles of fibre per customer than yards of fibre per customer. Small areas are always cheaper to do than large areas.
Note that one key element of cost of any service is population density, not population. 6000 people within a miles of each other is cheaper and easier to provide service to than 6000 people within 100 miles of each other.
Unless we change that, the economy must stop growing eventually.
Later on this century, the world population is expected to begin declining.
At that point, we're going to be entering new economic territory - pretty much all of our government and economic policies are predicated on a constant or increasing population.
The answer is to make the nation that placed the mines responsible for clearing the mines.
That'll go real well...
So, country X invades your country. You drive them back, and make peace. Then you invite them back to clear the minefields they laid in the war. And they decide to stay (and lay more mines)....
Or hasn't anyone ever explained that most people don't like the idea of large numbers of enemy troops in their country, even for an ostensibly good reason?
An organization or nation that might be losing a war or battle can mine an area, not to gain a military advantage, but to keep it from being used by another party.
Denying an area to the enemy IS a military advantage.
SO, who knew I was a psychopath just because I'd already seen one of your maps, and the other one was basically a big blob of color that made little to no sense?
Hint to people who make these distorted maps to emphasize their ideas: if the map is too distorted, noone can even read it without major effort, which most people won't make....
Wait, you mean that your civil rights are only for US citizens? They don't belong to us?
Yeah, pretty much.
Just curious, do you really believe that your country's espionage apparatus is careful to obey the laws of every other country in the world when they spy on foreigners?
Slashdot Mirror
If by "soyuz", you mean the manned vehicle, it has had two loss-of-crew accidents, and about ten mission failures where the crew survived. In 120 flights.
As opposed to Shuttle's two loss-of-crew accidents and zero mission failures where the crew survived. In 135 flights.
So, no, Soyuz does NOT have a "rock solid safety record".
Nor is Soyuz more versatile than Dragon. Smaller payload, in both men and cargo, and lower deltaV (and lack of reusability) do not make for "more versatile".
The only thing that Soyuz has on Dragon is that it has completed the man-rating part. Of course, with a 50 year head start, we'd expect that as a matter of course.
Seriously, does it really require an app to either:
A) Not answer?
B) Turn the phone off?
Well, if you can't handle either of the above, I suggest putting your phone in the trunk.
And if that doesn't work, set the phone on the ground just behind one tire of your car, get in the car, and back up ten feet....
Where the hell is "assite"?? And why didn't you capitalize it, if it's a place-name?
Or did you mean "aside"?
And yet you can't spell "were"....
They can. It's called "eminent domain". It's the process any government uses to seize private property....
I don't bother. There's a garbage bin between my mailbox and my house. The mail gets filtered before I get to the door and left in the garbage bin....
Frankly, the idea of a company opening my private mail for me, reading it, scanning it in, then making it available to me bugs the crap out of me.
Were these guys trying to get a contract with the NSA? Or did they just want to read my stuff themselves?
Oddly enough, while a passenger can do all these things, apparently a driver cannot.
Except her CCW permit, of course.
She thinks people like her having guns is perfectly fine, not so much the riffraff.
No, in fact, accident rates have been going down pretty steadily during the period that cellphones have been becoming increasingly common.
C'mon, they have Gollum in this one. How can they go wrong?
What you're describing was developed as a mine-clearance variant of the Sherman tank in WW2. Actually, several variants (one big roller, several smaller rollers, etc).
It's useful, but too easy to counter. Set one mine in twenty to delayed detonation, and you lose a lot of mine clearance vehicles.
They have money?
Umm, no. It's way more expensive to run miles of fibre per customer than yards of fibre per customer. Small areas are always cheaper to do than large areas.
Note that one key element of cost of any service is population density, not population. 6000 people within a miles of each other is cheaper and easier to provide service to than 6000 people within 100 miles of each other.
What's really sad about that mistake is that you only made it the once. The first time you used "their", you did it correctly.
Later on this century, the world population is expected to begin declining.
At that point, we're going to be entering new economic territory - pretty much all of our government and economic policies are predicated on a constant or increasing population.
That'll go real well...
So, country X invades your country. You drive them back, and make peace. Then you invite them back to clear the minefields they laid in the war. And they decide to stay (and lay more mines)....
Or hasn't anyone ever explained that most people don't like the idea of large numbers of enemy troops in their country, even for an ostensibly good reason?
Denying an area to the enemy IS a military advantage.
Yes, and unless you can provide a 100% guarantee that the mines have been cleared, the area will still be unusable.
And the only way you can test that an area is 100% clear is to tell people to use it, and listen for the booms....
So, have you donated your entire income to cleaning up the problem? If not, why not? After all, it's Doing the Right goddamn thing.
Oh, when you said economics should have ZERO argument, you meant OTHER PEOPLE'S economics....
SO, who knew I was a psychopath just because I'd already seen one of your maps, and the other one was basically a big blob of color that made little to no sense?
Hint to people who make these distorted maps to emphasize their ideas: if the map is too distorted, noone can even read it without major effort, which most people won't make....
Hmm, seems you have an editing error in your "editing era"....
Seems to me that your "but" implies that "harm no one" is false.
Now, arguably, harming yourself is not anyone else's business. On the other hand, leaving society to clean up after you is society's business....
Yeah, pretty much.
Just curious, do you really believe that your country's espionage apparatus is careful to obey the laws of every other country in the world when they spy on foreigners?
Interesting assertion. Does it come with some proof? A law of physics that makes such a trip impossible, that sort of thing...