" Stroke of fucking genius."

I think we're on the same page as this being a bad idea -- but I'm no where near as far along that page as you.

They most likely won't be able to read/write CURSIVE. They'll be able to read JUST fine. They'll be able to WRITE (print little letters that look like the letters they read). Will they be able to write quickly? Probably not, but they'll be able to write just fine.

"I haven't read how they know it's from Mars, just how exactly do they know?"

When they turned it over, there was a little sticker that said "Made on Mars".

I read the article. The rock didn't leave Mars 4.4 billion years ago.

"It began its journey to Earth more than 5 million years ago, about the time humans and chimpanzees were splitting from a common ancestor. That is when an asteroid struck Mars, catapulting the rock into space. "

5 million years is still a long time but is really a drop in the bucket and I doubt the rocks would have changed much.

Kind of a cross between "Transcendence" and "Limitless".

What could go wrong?

"And states should be allowed to legalise (sp) slavery. Because that worked so well the last time."

Sigh... Why not look at the history of the world as a whole. What nation ever fought itself over the issue of slavery? To the tune of over 600k dead?

Many of our abolitionist founders believed that slavery was a dead end doomed to end in the near future but elected to allow the south to maintain it for the interest of the union. It was essentially the cotton gin's invention which allowed slavery to remain economically viable far longer than they expected.

Without that economic leep after the 1790s, attitudes would have changed in the south as much they had in the north regarding slavery and it would have ended -- WITHOUT bloodshed. You've effectively made my point -- when a powerful central government makes a uniform law across a heterogeneous population, someone's rights are going to feel violated and they could very well go the route of the US in 1776 or the South in 1862.

I'm not saying that slavery or the south was in any way honorable. That war needed to be fought and is an exception brought on be a dramatic and swift economic change..

"thanks for letting us know you don't know what average means."

Your example shows you don't know what an IQ measures. Thanks for letting us know.

It's pretty apparent he meant half are below an IQ of 100, assuming 100 as the average (mean) and intelligence is evenly distributed (which basically defines an IQ test score) .

While an IQ of 99 isn't REALLY below average, his statement about expectations is appropriate.

Still, with a REAL number of about 25% below average intelligence (90 and below) we are left with about 80 million dullards out of about 320 million fellow citizens.

"Ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's forcing one person religious beliefs on another.
Banning gay marriage is no different then banning a religion."

I don't believe in rights magically appearing to be constitutional where they never have been before. I believe that if they can magically appear, they can magically disappear using the exact same mechanism. Living in such a world might appeal to you but it does not appeal to me. In fact, it scares the bejeezus out of me.

"We aren't that heterogeneous any more.
Drive around the country. Same strip malls, same gas stations, people watch the same set of entertainment.
Hell, do to TV, regional accents aren't as strong as they used to be."

Of course we are. I've driven across the country numerous times and lived in several states. Without listing countless examples, I'll cite one. Red states vs. blue states. Different political and economic philosophies.

"Also, thats not why it was set up that way."

Of course it was. Read Federalist 10 and 28. Federalism was set up to aid in preventing tyranny (and thus a civil war) by keeping all power in a central government, as well as to allow various other ideals to be tested and tried. A central authority is not by definition "tyrannical", however when trying to apply the same laws on an entire heterogeneous population with different economic religious beliefs a central single authority will by definition become tyrannical. Example, forcing a business owner to serve a customer for a service of which he has a moral objection violates his religious rights while the customer's civil rights may viewed as being violated. How long until the one who's rights are being suppressed follow Jefferson's observations:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" -- Jefferson

"All the Federal courts have said is that if the states wish to have a legal institution of marriage that it must be compatible with the 14th amendment, and States which do not allow gays to marry do not meet that requirement."

That statement is profoundly inaccurate. There have been federal courts that have decided on both sides and SCOTUS has yet to make a final decision. Hell, Prop 8 (California) was tossed out because the SCOTUS found the petitioners had "no standing". That was honestly a poor decision and a deliberate dodge. A liberal court may likely decide that the 14th amendment applies, but a conservative court would not. We have a 5/4 SCOTUS right now that have deliberately been trying to avoid making the decision you cite. I think it's inevitable that they will take up a case where they'll need to decide, however.

This is exactly the type of of issue that SHOULD be left to the states until society is more agreeable to it. I believe it's inevitable. If the far left state of California time and time again passed legislation against same-sex marriage and even added an amendment to it's State Constitution to forbid it then it should be painfully obvious that the doesn't come anywhere near the level of acceptance that interracial marriages had in the 60's. Note that Loving v Virgina was a UNANIMOUS decision.

"The US is nowhere near as heterogenous as you think. "

And I think you underestimate how important those differences are or how unevenly they are distributed. I've traveled the US numerous times. I've been to every state in the union (except alaska) numerous times and have lived long stretches (3 or more years) in 5 of them. Trust me, while we have more in common than different, those differences can become QUITE important. Particularly when we paint differences of political and economic philosophy in terms of "good" and "evil".

Moving from state to state *IS* more common that it was, but it is not universal and far from it. About 60% of the population are still residing in the state in which they were born. Of the rest, ~20% are foreign born -- leaving about ~20% "mobile" with the highest percentage of non-movers being in the mid-west. The lowest is the west. And the differences in numbers are profound (about 20+ percentage points different between the two regions).

Look it up. Census.gov is freely available. Or check up on a William Frey -- he published "The Great American Migration Slowdown".

"Real federalism was pretty much dead before the War of 1812 anyway so why maintain the facade of empowered states"

First, it's not really "dead", but very much weakened. Second, and most important, the reason WHY we should maintain "empowered" states is for the various reasons it was set up in the first place. We are not a homogenous nation. We are spread over a huge area, of various races, faiths, cultures and economic interests and yet we haven't torn ourselves apart (came close in the 1860s).

The stronger the Federal government becomes, the more likely the US will balkanize. Want to maintain the union? Limit the powers of the Federal government and let the states dictate more of what is in there interests. Example:

Gay Marriage. States should be allowed to ban gay marriage but be forced to recognize it when performed in states which allow it. You keep those who find it in conflict with their faith happy and provide a solution to those who are homosexual who wish to wed.

What happens over time is that America will change -- SLOWLY and once gay marriage becomes as accepted to the extent that an amendment to the Constitution can pass, you've now created a "right" which was accepted by a supra majority of the states/peoples without putting stress on the Union by it being perceived as being shoved down our throats.

It was DESIGNED to work slow as the swings and dramatic changes of both whim and passions would destabilize a government. And when a population is as heterogeneous as we are -- it would just add more sparks to the fuel of succession.

There WAS a VHS "game" that came out that matched the plot of Caves of Steel back in the 80s... It actually wasn't that bad. That's about as close as you're going to get to film/video right now.

They should be called HBOO (with a little dot in each "O").

Good thing it's Asimov and not George R R Martin...

Hari Seldon would have been killed by a classmate before he ever developed psychohistory.

They have the "ability" to cheat. Being "able" to do something does not make it a "right".

"This kind of lobbying would have a lot less influence if we repealed the 17th amendment (direct election of senators)."

Absolutely agree! It "breaks" the reason WHY we have a bicameral legislature in the first place.