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.

The Government should keep it's hand out of the private sector as much as possible, as that will reduce competition, etc. Agreed. Also, yes, the private sector shouldn't be managing publicly funded endeavors. However, I think it's wise if the government does take advantage of the fact that often times, it's a lot easier to hire a company to do a project rather then hiring state employees to organize and do the project on its own. Let's take a bridge for example. The Government can hire a company which has it's hand in the sector already to plan, engineer, and build the bridge. Or the government can hire employees of it's own, and create a branch in order to plan, engineer, and build the bridge. If the government hires the company, it will often pay a one time fee and then it'll get the bridge. This is typically by contract. If the government hires employees, it's now paying a constant price to it's employees, as well as retirement, materials, etc. Typically, when factored in, it's a lot cheaper to hire the company. Additionally, in my opinion, a lot more efficient as well. In my area, there's a company who makes bridges for the County. They can typically plan, engineer, and then build the bridge in three to four days. For the past two months, a 15-foot bridge has been closed down while Penndot(The state road crews) works on it. The reason is that Penndot is not done yet, is because there's no real motivation to get it done fast. They will ALWAYS get the "contract" to do the bridges. Meanwhile, the other company has to compete with usually two other companies for every contract it gets. If it does a bad job, the county will switch companies as it did a few years ago. I live in Pennslyvania and there are at least 55 bridges within a 10-mile radius of me. I see this all the time. Now, just because there is a single case where hiring a company is better, doesn't mean it's always better, but sometimes it is. I've seen road crews who are hired by the local government who do a terrible job, yet keep getting the contract because they don't want to switch road crews. That's where competition dies, and the problem comes in.

I'm assuming you've used the Mars 1 Mission Budget. However, using that, you have to be aware they're accounting for things like Communications satellites($425M), Unmanned exploration Rovers($900M), and essentially things like Mission organization, Astronaut training, and Scientific Research Equipment($1.8B). As for the cost of the rocket, that was placed at $3.5 Billion. Looking at that, you can compare it to the BFR Program(THe one being talked about) which is estimated at $8 Billion. Mind you, this rocket will be able to go to Mars and the Moon, with the only difference being the amount of time to go between them and the planning. The biggest cost for going to the Moon or Mars in that scenario would be the rocket, which would be already be developed, etc, at a price tag of $8 Billion(if the estimates are correct). So from there, the price of going to the Moon/Mars would only differ in planning costs, etc, which will drastically decrease over time eventually resulting in both missions being approximately the same on a per/month basis(because Mars takes 6-9 months, it'll be more expensive overall, but about the same in terms of month/cost) That doesn't make it impossible, it makes it unknown. Additionally, most of these long-term problems are currently being worked on by NASA and other agencies, with solutions like medication(https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/9-12/features/F_Space_Medicine.html) and other simple solutions like that. This is where I question the feasibility. I highly doubt any resources we mine on the moon would be worth transporting back to Earth due to the cost, hazards, etc. The real value would be in what it can be used for in space, and if that's what you're going off of then Mars has a lot more resources, as well as a larger variety(Like water). This would be an exception to what I said above. The BFR is currently being planned at 8 Billion, which is just above 4 times that. Even if it went three times higher then it's budget, it'd still only be 24 Billion, well below 100 times that. Additionally, SpaceX has done extremely well in terms of keeping things within budget, however, they've done a terrible job with keeping things on time. That's just how Capitalism worked in this case. They can't afford to just throw together a rocket that has everything and gets thrown away. So they made a rocket that can land. And they've continually made it far more powerful as well. I rather like where they're going with it, and I suspect the BFR will be a success..... albeit a decade later then predicted.

There is enough atmosphere on Mars to do something known as an aerobrake, where you use the atmosphere to slow yourself down.

Going to the moon would be just as expensive as going to mars in most cases, however, there is a lot less opportunity on the Moon. The gravity isn't anywhere near enough to support long-term human habitation, and while Mar's gravity isn't that good either, it's a lot better. Additionally, in terms of potentially terraforming somewhere, the moon has zero opportunities, while Mar's may actually have the ability to be terraformed through global warming. What's far more important, however, is access to electricity. A day on the moon is 29 earth days. That means 14.5 straight days of darkness. While this doesn't seem like much, it means you'll have to store about 15 days worth of electricity to power your station. You won't be able to rely on solar panels, which could be a problem because the solar panels might not be able to charge up the power supply in 15 days enough to last 15 days without having massive fields of them. You get the idea. Additionally, temperature. The Moon ranges from a boiling 260 degrees Fahrenheit(127 C) to -280 degrees Fahrenheit(-173 C). As for Mars, it's got a moderate 70 degrees Fahrenheit(20 C) high, and a comparably warm -100 degrees Fahrenheit(-73 C) low. On Mars, you deal with the cold. On the Moon, you deal with the boiling temperatures and the even colder temperatures. Any expansion on the Moon would require 50 times as much space for solar panels unless you're dragging fuel up there to heat your place, which is ill-advised(Explosive stuff in space = typically bad idea unless needed). Expansion on Mars would require solar panels, but nowhere near as much.

Absolutely agreed. Abraham Lincoln was president for 4 years and some months before he was assassinated after the civil war.

Far more likely.

This is true. However, I'm pretty certain that if I just kept posting what I believed and never addressed what others were saying back to me, it'd be a rather one-sided discussion. Just a thought though. This is terrible advice. You're suppressing rape victims from coming forward. Don't listen to him @koti . Take this to the police and have this evil monsterous bigoted piece of shit woman thrown in prison for the rest of her life. I mean, I have no evidence she did it, but it's perfectly fair these days to make our decision prior to the evidence being presented. Because obviously, it's so much easier for us to change our mind after it's been made rather than just waiting until we have evidence to decide.

I do respect you enough, however, you have a bad habit of only quoting one part of my post and seemingly ignoring the rest. I mean, take my post about the fears. You quoted one part about me saying somethings wrong if she believes all her fears. Address the fears that I brought to question and I can change my mind. That's how debate works. You address each of my arguments and claims, and I address each of yours. That way we're not talking past each other.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Three people came forward saying he was lying about his drinking habits. He's lying. So are the 65 other people who came forward to say he was telling the truth.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't want to participate in this discussion is there an obligation that you do?