Its even more absurd in the UK. It is illegal to drive on our motorways unless you have passed your test, not even under the supervision of a qualified instructor, but once you've passed your test, you cam immediately take a 400 bhp sports car for a spin on any road, including motorways, without any further lessons. What is even more absurd, if I were a learner I would be allowed to drive on the A2 road near London. The A2 isn't a motorway, but does a good impersonation of one, albeit one with narrow lanes and shoulders. Why is the A2 OK for learners, but not the M25 motorway that crosses it? Bureaucratic madness!!!!!

The big pain is when you have to go back to old tech. My own car has cruise control, but on a recent trip to the USA I ended up renting what was probably the only vehicle in the whole state of Nevada that didn't have this. I then spent the next 2 weeks driving over 2000 miles along straight, empty roads. Constantly having to check the speedo was tiresome.

a) Just wondering why do you think I am a he - clearly some very narrow minded thinking on your part? b) Who is this traitor in chief? Obama? I deliberately did not mention the constitution of any country. The argument is about whether historic norms are always going to be acceptable centuries later. Clearly they are not. Slavery being a bloody good example.

Why a fool? What part of my original post even hinted at liberties being unimportant? My point was that what was important 200 years ago could be absurd today. In the UK, in 1813, slavery was legal (and would be for another two decades). Imagine if the UK came up with a written constitution at that time. It is not unreasonable to say that that constitution would enshrined the right to own slaves, and if such a document existed I am reasonably sure that land owners who depended on slave labour would argue that emancipation of slaves was unconstitutional. My point is that the world changes, and that having an written constitution can be a bad thing because it is difficult to change as those with a vested interest will go to the courts if they think that their "constitutional rights" are being undermined.

I think the right to vote would be an excellent example. I live in the UK and 200 years ago only gentlemen of means had the right to vote. That made sense to those in power back then as the peasants were uneducated, and couldn't possibly know how to vote correctly. Today the "peasants" are educated and can make informed decisions. If the UK had a 200 year old written constitution, would there be those that arguing that universal suffrage is unconstitutional and should not be allowed? Who knows.

... and unlike countries with a formal written constitution, we aren't shackled to a set of rules that made sense 200 years ago, but now look totally absurd.

I'd be interested in what other fluid could have carved the canyons and washouts that litter the surface of mars. Water is simple and very common. I'm not sure that there is enough liquid hydrocarbon out there to create these flow structures.

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyllllantysiliogogogoch, oh wait that's only one word.