I agree with this so, so much

This is what I think of when people complain about medical science being indecisive. Biology is just really complicated.

Well, when designing a rocket you can just "add more fuel". We're talking about satellites and the occasional planet mission. Maybe adding a couple meters to the rocket is easier than going for an ideal engine.

I know making a larger rocket is more expensive, but rocket engines themselves are also expensive. If a 10% larger fuel tank saves you 20% maybe it's worth it. I'm not an expert so I made those numbers up.

>That is not very cost effective or practical.

Falcon 9 says it was, and is.

In retrospect it would have been far better and far cheaper to not have done this. But the Air Force had money and it would've been hard to turn it down.

Yes, jobs (and money) for congressmen's home states are the reason the space shuttle was built and why the SLS is so very similar.

Practicality and cost effectiveness is more important than the fuel cycle used.Fuel is the cheapest part of spaceflight.

Also,

>In sane states it's already the law that if you stack into someone you're at fault unless they deliberately tried to cause an accident. And you have to be able to prove it. Physics is on the side of this policy. It's much easier to avoid crashing into something than to avoid being crashed into.

You're referring to a driver being at fault for following too closely and not giving enough room to brake. But if going 40 in an 80 zone, you're causing everyone to bunch brake and merge which causes precisely that.

>Right, people expecting that the road will be clear are causing accidents when it isn't. That's what I said!

He didn't say that though. There's more to accidents than inattentiveness. In heavy traffic there will be a ton of sudden braking and merging and unnecessarily causing that is irresponsible.

>Same thing on the motorway or in any other situation where the unexpected occurs. My biggest gripe is people breaking a rule by stopping and 'letting someone turn across traffic' who doesn't have the right of way. Sure they stopped, but doesn't mean the person two lanes over will. If I am the one waiting I stare them down and wait for them to continue on. They should not be stopping. Even if it is 'polite', it is dangerous.

I agree so much. It needs to be heavily discouraged by everyone.

Service and process management should be fundamental on modern operating systems. That's the way I see it.

Indeed, the Good That Was Mozilla never actually left.

Thank god Seamonkey is still around. I haven't had to switch and pray I never do!

Given that it's a proprietary OS there's no good reason this should have taken so long other than a convoluted codebase.

>No, it's not. It's deep packet inspection for purpose of network management.

Except TFA is not at all about network management (which I'm ok with), but rather copyright enforcement. My ISP has no business tracking and watching the videos I view online.

Consumer Reports has long docked Ford for the computer system.

I know I'll miss my hardware radio and climate control buttons when I next buy a car.