HAM radio at its inception was one step away from the telegraph and governments realized that HAM will now become the primary means of communication that can outspan state borders such that the invention alone required new policies to be established in order to ensure the sovereignty of the state. Unfortunately, at this time, HAM radio is perhaps the worst means of communication, even if encrypted, by contrast to cellular calls and/or Internet communications such that the protectionism generated by the invention of HAM radio (especially for low frequencies that are well known) is at this point largely redundant. Due to the extremely high entry requirements that are now obsolete (years or "training" just to transmit and receive over certain frequencies), there is little interest in the general population to even pick up such a hobby; lest at the dawn of authoritarianism sign-up with the government and thereby invite even further state regulation.

If one were to stand true to the HAM radio philosophy, in educating people on radio telecommunications, then one solution to prevent the death of the hobby would be to dismiss all entry requirements. In short, HAM licensing can be dismissed entirely, allowing any individual to transmit and receive provided that they respect the already existing rules of not interfering with other communications and to only use the proper bands and frequencies allocated to HAM radio operators. Breaking any regulation in effect shall, as it is now, be sanctioned as per the existing laws and to the extent of the intent of the HAM radio operator.

Furthermore, instead of obsoleting classes and other "benefits", such as signing up with HAM radio clubs, or registering with the government, such services can continue to be offered, and perhaps even enhanced in terms of quality, in exchange for the proper payment. It is believed that switching to paid classes, instead of compulsory, or monetizing various perks pertaining to the HAM radio scene, shall lead to a more competitive scene where knowledge would be valued more and will be encouraged by more than just being a legal obligation. In many ways, it is also believed that this change should avoid corruption, and level the playing field between jurisdictions, especially in the current-day situation where not all governments in different states are equally exigent regarding their own laws, and/or international laws; one of the problems is that two HAM radio operators from two different geopolitical areas have the exact same rights (at the same level), even if one of the HAM radio operator had to work more than the other that might have obtained their permit through corrupt means. Similarly, the suggested change would allow radio clubs to work their way out of the situation where they are just a compulsory crib, having to offer services whether they like it or not, for individuals that are just seeking the legal permission to operate a HAM radio but without really wanting, or being able to, meet in person. Such clubs could restructure, to become more advanced schools, with premium services, perks and all the amenities of a proper business, instead of a state-regulated society.

If one were sincere about wanting to lift up developing states to standards, then instead of regulating the wealth of citizens, the federal subsidizes and funding for projects should be regulated (more strict) instead. The same sort of pitfalls have been observed by NGOs, such as Soros-funded philanthropic endeavors where money has been given out "for free" but many times with results so bad, that the financiers themselves are thought to have deliberate malefic intent. When money is given out, whether by philanthropists or federal centralization such as the European Community, the conditions are frequently loose enough for the people receiving the funds to be able to do with them as they please, including repurposing the funding via money laundering.

At the very least it is clear that subsidies should be meticulously tracked in order to ensure that the money handed out is actually used for the purpose that it has been petitioned for. Large-scale funding blocks given out under an all-encompassing title such as "for development" or, "for agriculture" and with low checks on returns, will just end up being swindled by the few that have the outspoken capability to reach closer to the funding source. Maybe even a shift to a market where beneficiaries, at the scale of states, could bid on solutions and those solutions could then be delivered to them externally, with the money being masked by the execution of the project or the delivery of the product, rather than leaving the distribution of the funds up to states that are known to have issues with corruption.

As an example, if some state decides that they want to build a highway connecting two landmarks, the state can appeal for help to a centralized organization such as the European Community, and, in turn, the European Community shall organize the construction (via bidding and proxies, internally) from start to end whilst also minding the appropriate standards that the highway has to built to and ensuring the proper monitoring such that the funds are used appropriately. As a counter-example, what shall not be done will be to dump an estimated sum of money onto the representatives of the member state and without checking at the end whether the project has been successful or if it adheres to the required European standards.

The consequence thereof would be more centralization, but one must observe that the current situation already is that subsidies are granted via centralization, such that further involvement would not necessarily affect other economic segments, yet hopefully just those that are being subsidized and with the process of picking the service being slid upward and closer to the financiers. Ultimately, the solution can be seen as a slider, where, it is the already existing "solution", yet with more control shifted up closer to the financiers and with the effect of skipping local governance that might be corrupt in order to prevent the loss of capital.

As an example, a subsidized road will be picked and executed as a result by a bid of a member state, and for the duration of the execution, that build will constitute a monopoly, yet the monopoly will just take place on the local market and only at the level of "road building" while also being only temporal till the work has been realized. The monopoly itself will only appear as a monopoly on the local market, because the financiers would implicitly be able to bid upward as well on the actual companies that will be tasked with creating the work.

Women shall have the veto right to abort a baby within the legal terms but keeping the baby shall only be allowed with the consent of both the man and the woman.

The idea behind this is that no woman should be forced to be mother if she does not feel that she wants to be one and then the quality of life of a child hinges directly on the well-being of the parents such that both should agree; along the same lines, anchoring a baby for the purpose of extorting alimony shall be prevented implicitly by the very same law. Scaling taxes shall ensure that the law will not be broken and will provide arbitration if necessary. In principle, the law is conceived to prioritize the benefit of the child over that of the parents.

Succession law will be adjusted appropriately in order to swap the current relative standing between a "wife" and the "children" of the couple. In other words, any inheritance that has been left over by the "husband" or "wife", that has additionally not been conditioned by a testament, shall go to the actual immediate of kin which is the "children" and then, by alliance, the spouse, whether husband or wife.

This edict attempts to address the longevity issue of human kind in order to compensate for advances in medicine that have extended the lifespan of humans well beyond what many societal mechanisms can accommodate. In reversing the roles, it shall be ensured that the children will be able to continue their lives without having to wait to inherit generational wealth, thereby being able to make a contribution to society much earlier on. At the same time, the reversal will still ensure that the "spouse", whether that be the "husband" or "wife", will still be able to survive in case their survival was ever contingent on the entire wealth of their significant other.

The current succession law implicitly incorporates the fact that one of the "spouses" will assume a housekeeping role, where some time would have to be yielded from the ability to raise capital, such that the law tends to prioritize the spouse. This seems a latent image of far away times when the workforce was almost unanimously skewered towards one of the spouses, typically the husband, but never really accounted for the modern situation where both parents work. However, note that the "privilege", if any, of being "maintained" is culturally and historically framed but does not account for "modern workforces" where the "wife" can make a contribution with even greater significance than the "husband".

Having the former two combined, it makes sense that the weighted priority set should be adjusted to favor the children, and ensure that they can enter society with their existing wealth, instead of having to "wait in line" and, given our advances, end up "too old" right on delivery.

Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the Gods, ships shall be built to carry our warriors out amongst the stars and we will spread Origin to all the unbelievers. The power of the Ori, will be felt far and wide and the wicked shall be vanquished." - Doci in season 9, episode Origin Parables

Ultimately given an increasing population and due to passing past the point of no-return where resources are consumed faster than the Earth can replenish (since the 1970s, see Earth Overshoot Day), either the human population is drastically reduced such that the consumption falls back behind the line or, alternatively, a large investment is made in space exploration with the hopes of finding the resources that humanity needs. The latter solution is entirely possible, NASA having such incentives embarrassingly on their own, for instance, the mining of the asteroid Psyche, such that a world-wide consortium that would invest in finding effective means to expand into space would not only greatly surpass NASA but will also generate more results given more resources. It is an understatement how much money governments make each year, just due to taxation alone, such that various contribution schemes could be implemented to fund space exploration. Compared to human knowledge, say, a century ago, Earth has been completely discovered, part and parcel and the planet can even be observed in real-time on websites like Bing or Google maps, such that there are not too many big mysteries to be uncovered, along with the reminder that planet Earth is finite. Resource shuffles such as the result of wars, considering that the resources are finite and guaranteed to run out in time, are both hilarious and when scaled in time, doomed to hopelessness. Either way you see it, especially considering time, there is no here, only out there.

Up to now, individual companies within member states have petitioned the European Community for development funds in order to realize various projects ranging from infrastructure to scientific endeavors. However, more than often the European Community has requested little in return, even in terms of formal papers attesting to the successful accomplishment of the work, with the funds being wasted mostly on tertiary expenses such as the funding of auxiliary necessities (laptops, cars, chauffeurs, etc.). Similarly, project selection and availability will be centrally managed; for example, Romania will have no more projects available to build, say, Olympic-scaled swimming pools or to change pavement borders on the streets, in favor of projects revolving around the development of vital infrastructure (water, gas, roads, etc.) that might be deemed more vital to European infrastructure.

To that end, a bidding system will be established where member countries will request some development project to be completed (for example, a new highway) with the bid occurring centrally at the European Community with a series of selected companies (selected through competition and results themselves) that will execute the request project. The money will be passed directly to the executing company, under the supervision of the EU directly, without any local meddling within the project itself except as tertiary cooperation and on demand.

Whilst it is clear that such arrangement would bypass any local sovereignty of the local country, it is still the local country that will demand such an intervention, and for the sole purpose of the realization of the projects that will be demanded. That said, for the purpose of the realization of the project, any local sovereignty will be irrelevant to the point that a country that will interfere over its own demands for the completion of a project will be double billed in case it is the fault of the local country that the project has been hampered.

It might be possible to use Zeppelins or balloons or a combination thereof to greatly reduce the costs of space travel by placing the liftoff point itself closer to the exposphere (last sheath of the planet). Doing so will greatly reduce the space necessary for shuttle and/or rocket design as well as simplify the design while at the same time also greatly reducing the fuel consumption (that now seems both atrociously much, as well ironically being the most technically-dangerous and damaging part of flight).

A zeppelin or balloon that has passive lift based purely on buoyancy and that only steer using minor propulsion for adjustments might as well carry, or rather, float payloads closer to the exosphere, the proverbial exit of the planet, and then using a short burst simply "jump into space" by breaking free of the last gravity.

Calculations wise, even with a layman knowledge level, it takes roughly to lift (with temperature actually being a helping factor that ends up lifting even more given the excitation of molecules) using Helium. A space shuttle is said to weigh about which would imply that the volume of Helium necessary would be roughly contained within an square-enclosure where each side of the cube would have length of - that is a cube with all sides measuring about .

By modern standards, this seems workable, along with "the latest and the brightest" advances that could provide optimizations (ie: maybe not Helium, maybe something else, etc). Either way, launching from sea level is just burning fuel for nothing and one could just as well launch from a plateau, such as the Mongolian plateau, or, say, Mr. Everest in order to reach closer to the exosphere.

A balloon or Zeppelin is used due to its extremely low cost, which is specifically targeted in practical applications for its lift-power, such that using one for this purpose seems straightforward. Similarly, contrary to rockets, balloons and Zeppelins do not have a one-shot usage pattern but could even be held in air permanently, like a floating city, such that reusing the same lift very many times is quite feasible. Escaping the planet would then be reduced to lifting the payload with the balloon or Zeppelin and then using just a little bit of thrust to jump into space and break free of the remaining gravity.

Almost-space cruising balloons exist, and some have even been designed for the sake of lifting payloads, but none with the idea of eliminating or cutting down costs for the purpose of launching large vehicles, such as a space shuttle. Some balloons reach up to in the atmosphere, which would place a payload "half-way", between the mesosphere and the thermosphere (with the next one up being the exosphere, the last sheath). The current space-station is said to orbit in the thermosphere so even the most performing balloon is quite overkill and lift-off from the thermosphere would be reduced to just a powerful nudge.

Of course the balloon or Zeppelin idea could just be rehased into a flying platform or similar, perhaps with multiple smaller balloons depending on engineering constraints and to keep things modular, with the placement of such a platform, even leveraging Earth's terrain by holding the platform over already tall areas of the planet (hence Mt. Everest). In reality, for this purpose, the plaform would more or less be tailored to be no more than a sophisticated, gas-powered elevator, tethered to the ground maybe, and not necessarily a steerable "vehicle". Another idea is that high-orbit balloons are extremely brittle (to reduce the weight) such that a much stronger vehicle could just punch through the balloon - in other words, the balloon could just be attached and drag the vehicle up as close as possible and after engine burn the vehicle would just fly through the balloon; but this is worse because it does not have any re-usability and all the gas used for lifting would then just be released.

Note that Hydrogen has a better lift power of about per cubic meter yet it is completely volatile (hence Hindenburg) compared to Helium that is a noble gas and inflammable at common temperatures (ie: the ones that can still be spoken of in Celsius and/or Fahrenheit, not Kelvin). Fortunately enough, both of them are fairly cheap, but this balances the cost onto the actual enclosure that is meant to hold the gasses. Ether way, a floating platform with the vehicle being dragged in the middle seems to be the best mean average of all ideas, and perhaps tethered to the ground somehow, mainly because it is reusable, a simple design and extremely cheap if everything is to be reused for multiple launches. Who said elevators have to be enclosed within walls!