Damn right! Not only would we reduce violent crime and incarceration rates, we would also give uncounted masses of chronic drug usesr that are in desperate need of mental health assistance a chance to interface with medical personnel. Removing the perjorative aspects of drug use is the first step to removing the stigma. It is the stigma (well and fear of prosecution) that keeps underpriveledged and dispossesed addicts from seeking mental health assistance that could get them off of drugs and into real treatment of the underlying causes of addiction. Namely, untreated psychological disorders.

But what to do with all of the infrastructure, ingenuity, business acumen, and cut throat (literally!) tacticians that have made the drug trade so profitable and effective? I say we harness the power of prohibition! Since prohibition is so great at forcing the development of low cost methods of acquisition, production, and distribution it would be a shame and great disservice to just let it collapse on itself and atrophy. Let's outlaw alternate fuels and green energy. Lets outlaw cybernetic implants. Lets outlaw safe sex! Then we will be certain to have a constant supply of these newly banned services at unheard of low prices and without even a the faintest hint of elitist bias in distribution. And why should this work? Because, well, that's just the nature of prohibition, and man for that matter.

All we need is automated mining and smelting equipment, some fancy 3d printers, and programmable assembly robots. Then we can Von Neumann the shit out of the moon and asteroids!

Most of their mass is not worthwhile to transport back to Earth, but would make fantastic raw materials for more robots, spare parts, spacecraft hulls, etc. Building a massive iron spacecraft is not a thing we would do on earth due to the expense of getting it out of ye olde gravity well. However, if its assembled in space who cares!

The valuable "trace" elements could be accumulated and sent back to earth or used in-situ for electronics, catalysts to process CHON into chemical propellant, or whatever is neded.

Pie in the sky bootstrapping, I know. But let a boy dream, eh?

My axiom for scary situations is: "When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!"

Any chace this behavior fits their target exclusion profile?

Dark coloring makes perfect sense. Think about it. If you created a prehistoric sea beast that was half shark/half alligator I bet you would paint them black too. It just looks more awesomer! Now, if they could only find a test to see if any of them had frickin lazer beams strapped to their heads...

Worse, Consensus != Correct Response.

And even worse than that, Fact != Correct Response.

I have not heard one single suggestion from those that associate themselves favorably with the idea of "climate change" that wasn't foolish, irrelevant, or even outright destructive. So what if they are right, it just means we are all fucking doomed. They are wasting all of their vast media exposure, grassroots support, and political clout on things that won't make a damn bit of difference if the Earth's future is anything like its past. We will just be another species in the 98% column.

I am not a "believer", nor am I a "denier". I am a realist. As a realist all of the causes, predictions, models, and wild empassioned gesticulations around the subject of "climate change" are inconsequential. I will say this again, the causes, at our current level of preparation, are irrelevant. What is relevant is the Earth has been both hotter and colder than it currently is, intolerably so, and innumerable times in repeating cycles. We are living in a generouosly temperate era, a fortunate anomoly that has given us the ability to cover this planet with people. Regardless of what we do, this Elysian comfort we are so dependent on will eventually end. A realist knows that the only logical result of these facts is to prepare for the worst our planet has to offer, or suffer extinction.

Of course a realist also knows that a species that uses the spectre of global climate change to manipulate markets, expand taxation, circumvent rights and priviledges previously guaranteed, and as a political power grab deserves whatever it gets. Stupid humans.

As a self-admitted deist, I have come to the conclusion that both atheism and deism are intellectually inferior to agnosticism. There is insufficient provable evidence for both the existence and non-existence of any supernatural, universe creating entity. And, while that may lead some on the path of least resistance to atheism, I dont think it is intellectually superior to agnosticism.

Oddly, I came to this conclusion by reading "The hero with a thousand faces" by Joseph Campbell. His attempt to distill and illuminate the coincidences and commonalities in religious mythos got me thinking of this as well. I noticed that a common thread throughot most religions is the concept of "free will" coupled with decisions or actions. Whether that is exemplified by the call to believe or to excercise some ritual, the core is that deities respect free will and demand people use it to confirm thier acquiescence to their diety.

It is then no strech to say that a deity that respects free will cannot "stack the deck" in their favor by creating a universe where their existence is undeniable without invalidating that free will. To take this thought even further experimentally, consider that if we existed in a universe where god was provable, choosing to believe or have faith in a deity would be meaningless, which would invalidate all this effort on the part of the deity to make human decisions so eternally important. Your choice would be to either acknowledge a fact or to wilfully ignore the evidence.

Not much of a choice, which brings us back to the idea of free will. I posit that if a universe creating deity exists, and specifically creates beings designed to make free decisions for or against that deity, it must create a universe for those beings to live in that is identical to one where god does not exist. So, in order to preserve the freedom of choice that a diety will ostensibly use to determine our eternal future, that deity has to remove any irrefutable proof of their existence from the universe.

Again, this is just a deists perspective on why I think agnostics hold an intellectually superior position to both deists and atheists. YMMV.

Because men were not the subject of a political hype media campaign by the name of the "War on Women." No one cared tremendously about universal contraception coverage for women before that particular meme was spread by the media in their new role as the servants of certain political agendas. All men need to do is get the attention of a certain political party and convince them to create a "War on Men" flame campaign. Then, after a few months of hardcore media repetetion and perjorative demagoguery, we can ride the resulting social inertia to the promised land of insurance covered condoms, vasectomies, viagra, and penis enlargement surgery!

You just described the term "isagogics", which is an important part of any valid scholarly attempt to understand a theological manuscript. Oddly, most people that undertake an attempt to understand the bible do so without it, and therefore misconstrue, misapply, or even miss completely the meaning of the text.

3. Instead of this highly suspect and unporven technology how about some good old fashioned guns, tanks, and planes?

I think the bird needs some changes. Draw on an expensive suit, shove a $1000-wrapped-cigar in its beak, plump up the proportions until the visual connotation of "mother" is replaced with "diseased corpulent glutton," then slap a haughty self-satisfied grimace on its jowled and jaundiced face. Finally, you need to turn it around 180 degrees so the food the birds are consuming is properly represented.

Reminds me of high school and the music scene. I listened to music you didn't hear on the radio. It was called "alternative" and sometimes "new wave" by the uninitiated. These no-name, underground, and marginalized bands were The Cure, Depeche Mode, New Order, Nine Inch Nails, REM, U2, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Janes Addiction, Souxsie and the Banshees, The Smiths/Morrisey, Bjork/Sugarcubes, 10,000 Maniacs/Natalie Merchant, No Doubt/Gwen Stefani, The Smashing Pumpkins, and Butthole Surfers.

Now everyone recognizes these bands. Their music, both old and new, is considered mainstream. I have heard early Cure elevator music. Perry Farrell from Jane's Addiction is on a damn reality show. Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) may win an Oscar this year for the score of The Social Club. The examples are too numerous to list. Needless to say, these musical analogues of the archetypal basement dwelling geek are now industry leaders and serve as seminal inspiration for the young, fresh , hot new things that will form the mainstream of tomorrow.

This interaction and evolution is relfected in the rise of geek culture in the mainstream. However, the main difference I see is that geek culture is directly shaping our society and catalyzing our future merely by the expression of its core identity. Sepcifically I am referring to the inexorable link between geeks and the technology they not only love, but create. Generous helpings of new, unavoidably ubiquitous, geek-made technology like smart phones, file sharing/P2P, game consoles, social network services (facebook), Bluetooth, navigation systems, WiFi, laptops, everything Apple, and so on (ad nauseam!) not only change the way we interact, relax, work, and play but also, in an almost insidiously seductive way, mold everyone who uses them into and effigy of geek-ness.

The geekification of America is inevitable, and I, for one, welcome our new geeky overlords.

Poor nerdy Sagan. Apparently he never had the pleasure of tasting the the heavenly sins of a debauched 16 year old preacher's daughter. From my experience the only things preacher's kids were "fanatical" about was Boone's Farm, a bag of good hydro for the weekend, and indiscriminate sexual encounters (especially on school property.)

Further proof of my theory: Don't take social advice from basement dwellers.

I have never met a human who is not susceptible to suggestion and who does not posess some level of superstitious fallability. If you have I am betting you just don't know them well enough. I think you are creating a distinction without a difference with regard to the humanity in general and this supposed gene.

The irony here is also notable. There is no known "religious gene." However, if one exists you may well have it, as your skepticism about its existence is curiously nonexistent.

"There's something to say about pots and kettles here :)."

Can we please update this saying? Most kids don't even know what those are. Furthermore, even if you can help them find one in their kitchen their response is "Well this one's red..."

In honor of this discussion I suggest we replace "pot" and "kettle" with "black hole" and "dark matter." Hmmm, might need to change "black" to "unobservable" or something like that.

Then again, maybe I am just going off half cocked?

Ignorance plus subjectivity equals arrogance and intolerance.

Check your head.