If you need help understanding the issues timothy raised, I suggest reading "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman.

Ah, you're one of those people...using the wrong tape (such as the tape meat to mark an Express package on something you're shipping Priority or First Class)...

This is why smart people avoid rework by packing their stuff at the post office.

You're supposed to have everything packed up and ready to go before you walk in the door.

I guess you just can't please everyone all of the time.

HOAs are just an affront to your personal liberties and a money pit. Their enforced conformity preserves nothing and gives you nothing (except some light fascism).

Ditto for cities.

No. Both factions turn into 'socialists' whenever it benefits Big Business.

So in other words, yes.

Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority over the issues of parking you just mentioned...

When has that ever prevented anyone from objecting to something?

Republicans believe in the free market not communism.

Then maybe you can list some Republicans who object to the currently widespread practice of cities forcing businesses and developers to provide more parking than the market wants and is willing to pay for of its own accord? Are there any true laissez-faire Republicans in Congress?

No, Republicans quickly turn into socialists whenever it benefits Big Oil.

For example, I would bet dollars to donuts that the Sci-Fi channel didn't make any money for years.

And that's because people who wanted SyFy didn't pay more for it as they would have if it were unbundled. So to keep the channel attractive to cable companies, SyFy was forced to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to get viewers.

The thing about airlines is that they unbundle things that almost everyone wants.
Food, drinks, legroom, checked baggage.

If it's something people don't all want equally, what the airlines are doing makes perfect sense. Unless you arrived at the airport hungry, thirsty, tall, or bringing a lot of luggage--then you might disagree.

It would be nice if legislators also tested their ideas for unintended consequences before making them permanent.

The shuttle, spaceplane aproach attempts to build something that is both a rocket and an airplane. The result may be both rocket and plane but it is neither a very good rocket nor a very good plane.

It's worse than that. It's a rocket, an airplane, and an orbital re-entry vehicle. A suborbital craft is much better at being both a rocket and an airplane.

"Defects are not free. Somebody makes them, and gets paid for making them." --W. Edwards Deming

Today's newest, most fuel-efficient jetliners achieve about 100 passenger-miles per gallon, while electric bullet trains run at the equivalent of 300-500 passenger-miles per gallon. So air travel has a long way to go before it's as fuel-efficient as ground transportation.

Also, bullet trains are faster, curb-to-curb, for distances up to about 400-500 miles. And you can add intermediate stops at a cost of only a few minutes each.

So there's great potential to reduce air travel at no cost to our standard of living.

That only applies where people tailgate.