NicholaiRen

Huh. Back to federal law again then.

Perhaps. https://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20091001/NEWS/910010317

If they were hunting and killing whales, trust me, they wouldn't be worried about freeing it now, would they? Ah, it's a Massachusetts law. So that'd be state as well.

It's not a crime to catch whales in a net. It's a crime to keep them there. Additionally, cutting nets in a way that the whale takes them with is a terrible idea, as you can simply open the net and let the whale out without cutting it. Nets aren't cheap. But, it's illegal to simply open the net and let the whale out. Instead, you must hold the whale there, potentially drowning it while it's tangled in the net, until state authorities boat out to meet you in a few days......

Hmm. Perhaps that is an option.

Yes. Like the regulation in Texas that requires Free Lance Computer Technicians to have a private investigator license because it's not uncommon that they find illegal stuff on computers. And then that other regulation that says in order to obtain a private investigator license you need a degree in criminal justice or a three-year apprenticeship with a private investigator. Because we can't just have tech-savvy people working to fix our computers. They need law degrees. Or the regulation that requires Bloggers to pay for a $300 license in Philadelphia. Because it's an official business once you make more than $.01. Or the regulation in Lousiana that in order to sell caskets, you must be a licensed funeral director. Or the regulation in Massachusetts that anyone watching children for money must brush the child's teeth after lunch. Or the regulation that commercial fishermen are not allowed to untangle whales from their nets. They must wait for state authorities to arrive and do it for them. Or the regulation that you must have a license to go out of business in Milwaukee. Or 80,000 pages more of this crap. Trumps removing a lot of these types of regulations, and I don't see that as one of the worth things about his administration. Because I don't believe bloggers put people in danger by not paying a $300 license. Or that fishermen untangling whales without state authorities are putting people in danger. Or that the technician who doesn't have a law degree is gonna make people sick.

Well, my example regarding super-sized sodas apparently had absolutely nothing to do with my position to you because you ignored it and jumped straight to pharmaceuticals. So if your criteria remain the same for you as it does me, I'd say yes. Your statements were general.

The problem with the poles however are that it's constantly boiling hot there because of the sunlight, unless I'm mistaken?

You realize that you did the same thing by going against removing government regulations right? In which case, I could bring up examples of your USA's previous jim crow laws and accuse you of support racist regulations. Again. It's about respect. I can make sure that whenever we have a discussion you have to point out every statement you make with parameters relating to every situation OR I can simply assume you're making a logical argument and not focus on the minute things that you did or didn't mention. Your choice.

My apologies, I assumed when I said that, you'd realize I wasn't advocating removing every regulation ever made, just some things. Same to you @iNow. Next time I won't assume that you'll realize I'm not advocating for slavery and cannibalism. Additionally, for the sake of actually having an on-topic discussion, I'm not assuming that just because you're Pro-Government Regulations for some things means you'd support every possible regulation ever made. I mean, I'd be just plain stupid to assume that. Although, it would allow me to simply paint you as a terrible person because I could just take every extreme and racist regulation there ever was and accuse you of supporting that. But I didn't. That's called respect. I respect you enough not to misrepresent your position, and I hope you can respect me enough not to misrepresent my position. Now if you actually did happen to look at the example that explicitly mentioned instead of guessing that I support slavery and cannibalism, you'd see I mentioned a super-sized soda in New York. Again, I don't see that as an entirely necessary government regulation, which is the type of "contract parameters" I think the government should leave its hands out of.

One of the things inside of one of the EPA's policies that they put out in my state was that anybody who lived on a flood plain couldn't own a large number of prohibited items. One of these items was Chlorine. So about 15 houses in my area had to have their ingrown pools dug up because it was illegal, and if they didn't get rid of them they couldn't have flood insurance and they'd have to pay a fine. Floods come about every 10 years here, so it's necessary to have them. Shortly after making them take up their pools with the risk of losing flood insurance(the home owners had to foot the bill), the EPA retracted the policy because there were some glaringly obvious problems with it(I.E. tearing up inground pools or lose flood insurance and pay a fine). Regulations aren't only placed on businesses you know..... These are two entirely different matters. One is the government putting parameters on government contracts. That makes sense. If you're buying something, you can decide what you want with it. That's a good thing. One is the government putting parameters on other peoples contracts. This makes less sense. If you're buying something, you can decide what you want with it, the government shouldn't have to. Like a New York ban on super-sized sodas. Healthier? Maybe. Necessary or needed? Absolutely not. I feel that many people have been led to believe that American Businesses are terrible organizations, bent on making money and completely disregarding customers, incapable of thinking beyond the next payment, and impossible to reason with.

Yes. This is an excellent example of something that the government would, and should, run and take care of.

Yes, the usage of local materials would have been a much better idea, agreed. What other ways could California have handled that situation better?

Yes, this is one of the areas I disagree with how the government handles things. However, this is especially an issue with state-run projects too. If the state hires a cheap bidder, and the bidder goes over budget, the state has the option of simply firing them and going with someone else. However, they rarely do this. If the state itself is the one doing the project, and they run over budget, there are far fewer options because it's the state itself. Local Government actually has to provide a reason for not going with the lower Bidder. However, previous contracts going over budget is considered a valid reason, as are other issues such as bad jobs, etc. The way it's divided up is between State, County, and Local roads. State roads, like routes and highways, are managed by the state. County Roads are managed by the county. Local roads are managed by the city council/township/whatever it is. Yes, I definitely simplified it, however, I don't feel as so I simplified it too much. The service that private construction companies sell are often the construction of the bridge, repaving of the road, installation of drainage systems, etc. I feel as though the golden gate bridge is an outlier in terms of management, however. It's a huge bridge, and in my area, bridges are rarely more than 30 feet. You are correct though, these things vary massively and the government should handle each situation individually in the best way possible. What are some good options governments should pick from in your opinion? My opinion is either having a dedicated branch to handle it or a single hiring of a private company. Hiring a private company to manage things is a bad idea, because you could have simply hired people to manage it and you wouldn't have to pay the middle man(the company).

The BFR is designed to fly from Earth to Mars and from Mars to Earth repeatedly so I'm not seeing the issue. Additionally, so would the moon mission. They'd be required to do the same. However, once again the value of the resources is not what you can transport back to Earth, but how you can use it there. On Mars you have lots of ground, sunlight, metals, gases, fuel, and even water. I think this alone makes it compelling to go to Mars because in the long term, a lot more of what you need will be on hand. With the progress of 3D printers, even ones that can use metal, I suspect it won't be long before you can turn even raw minerals into complex machinery with relative simplicity. The first rocket was the Falcon 1, the second was the Falcon 9, and the next was the Falcon Heavy. "F**king One Rocket." "F**king Nine Rockets!". "F**king Heavy Rocket!" "Big F**king Rocket. Seems to only make sense at the last one, so that means they would have had to plan this the entire time. Could be a conspiracy.