Slashdot Mirror

Apples & oranges - Moral codes are a protocol for social interaction within one's own monkeyshere, they are a method for discovering the 'meaning of life' not the nature of reality.

This is not to say social interaction is 'useless'. The codes naturally evolve by competition into full blown civilizations that come and go based on their ability to adapt. Science at it's core is a formalised method of evolving usefull models such as how to eliminate the amoral apes in competing monkeyshere's, or how to feed one's own monkeysphere. The important difference being that with science decisions are based on an imposed universal standard of logical thought, moral descisions are made on the spot all the time by 6-7 billion different codes - they are a reflex of my tribal mind, like catching a ball.

It's not an unrealistic generalization to say that civilizations who's morals respect science will "out compete" those that do not. Ironically if this stays true for a long enough time then science could be come part of our 'natural' morals.

Here is why the lack of scientific understanding by an alarming number of decision makers will never abate.

Here is the type of incident that hits the front pages of Australia's best rag.
Here is the follow up that is virtually ignored.

Since my partner was working there at the time I am gratefull they took precautions since there might have been a "cancer cluster" of unknown cause. Anyone who has responsibility for someone's welfare (such as the Hippie Mayor) should do likewise and investigate any concerns even if they themselves think they are unfounded.

However because the press basically ignored the investigation most people here in Oz now belive towers cause cancer adding a "foundation" to those initial concerns.

This isn't a rant about the dumbing down of mass media, it's a rant about human nature using a car analogy.

If a car backfires most people will look toward it and then go about there bussiness without really knowing what the noise was. The analogy holds well for reporters and politicians adding weight to the controversial theory that practioners of these two proffesions are in fact human.

IMHO the best defense against oneself is to be continually skeptical of your own common sense and depth of knowledge. The best defense against "freaked out hippies", "cheap labour captialists", and all the goups in between, is to admit 99% certain is 1% wrong and "they" are human.

I think De Waal would agree that 'You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go inside the monkeyshpere'. part1, part2

I think De Waal would agree that 'You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go inside the monkeyshpere'. part1, part2

I think this article is informative.

Research on this phenomenon has been ongoing for some time. Here's an excellent summary: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

Let me guess - you have never been either poor OR wealthy have you?

Fact is, human nature is not proportional to the size of ones wallet, you could just as easily rant on about how the middle class lock themselves up in tiny castles keeping their children in the dungeon.

I don't want to get bogged down in an argument about Al Gore's (alleged) political hypocricy, nor do I care if you trust him, or for that matter me either. What I and am saying is that his movie was (at the time of release), a faithfull representation of the IPCC reports. I am not the only one who claims this, the IPCC scientists who wrote the reports reviewed the movie. follow the "original assesment" link in this otherwise interesting story.

"I interpreted "the problem" to be green house gases/CO2 not other environmental damage."

That's the diffrence between reductionist science and engineering, right there in that sentance. The "environment" is the system thats stops us all from looking like the poor bastards in Sudan, "capitalisim" and "environmentalisim" are not seperate things...stay with me here ... I assure you I am not a raving hippie and I do hold a BSc in computer science with a major in operations research. "Systems" have been my bread and butter for 20yrs and prior to that I had 15 years of low paid work on sawmills, fishing trawlers, farms, building sites, and several depressing factories.

The "problem" is that the industrial revolution is making our one and only biosphere unsuitable for civilization at such a rate that system will crash in a catastrophic manner rather than a "gracefull" degredation that can be adapted to with ease, humans (as opposed to life) can't reboot from a blue globe of death. Some of the major symptoms of this impending system crash are know by the following reductionist soundbites (in rough order of importance)...

Sixth great extinction.(#0 - The "problem" in a nutshell)
Climate change. (#1 - For it's observable impact on our agriculture)
Collapsed fisheries. (#2 - No grain OR seafood)
Peak oil. (#3 - The global economy fighting itself.)
Deforestation. (#4 - Way too fast for anything to adapt.)
Desertification. (#5 - A symptom of #1 & #4.)
Oil wars. (#6 - A symptom of #3)

I don't hold out a lot of hope for human nature either.

"I don't understand that at all."

That's why the tradgedy of the commons is ...well... a tragedy. Exluding the noble nations, pollution and non-renewable depletion do not factor as costs of doing bussiness, google for texaco and bolivia, BHP and Papua, Shell and Nigeria and just about anything that happens in Asia. The tragedy of the commons is - the - major bug in our current version of capitalist system.

"In a democratic sense everybody has the same right to emit CO2....everybody should get a particular fraction thereof and if they choose to sell it great."

Still reading? - I agree with you and I think the majority of mankind are on our side.

That would lead to increased costs for everything as the "noble" class who purchased up tons and tons of indulgences resell them to actual businesses that create products.

So (in a capitialist sense) how is that different to any other service side industry, eg: a bank loan? The English civil war, the French revolution and the war of independece were all reactions to the excesses of nobility - on a modern global scale we are "the nobility". At the end of the day no amount of politics will change a physical limit of nature, politicians generally refuse to acknowledge any kind of limit that they themselves have not set. If they set that limit according to GDP then the "buying of indulgences" is meaningless because the indulgences are as limitless as GDP.

If our leaders suddenly started using logic, then the difficult part of a demoractic cap and trade scheme is how to credit everyones individual "C02 account" when a large chunk of the population have never seen a letter box. The pra

What cracks me up is that you've been modded 5; Funny.

Would being all sad and mopey bring make them less dead? They are 9 strangers, they're way the hell outside my monkey sphere. 9 people died in my zip code in the past few days, i'm sure. But i don't have the time or sanity to spare to mourn them. When i die all of 10 people might shed a tear on that day. The other 6 billion people on the planet will call it "Tuesday". It's not about being callous, it's sanity management. i'm sorry these guys died (while working on a device meant to kill people). i feel bad for their families. But in the grand scheme of things, it's no big deal to me personally. i get a bit choked up when i see road kill. When i see a funeral procession i pull over immediately. i'm not callous, i just have more important things to do than mourn people on the other side of a planet.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

alternative book covers

"Furthermore, atheists tell us 1) we weren't designed for any reason 2) all the thoughts in our head are the result of physics and chemistry. If atheists were consistent with their own atheism, that would leave us with absolutely no confidence in our own rational faculties to ascertain truth."

While I agree BOTH atheists and the religious live in "glass houses"....

1) Reason and design are anthromorphisims of The miricale.

2) If there is no "head" to contain my thoughts do they still exist? I mean I know (intuitively and logically) they are NOT physical but does that mean they don't require physics and chemistry to emerge and maintain?

3) "Confidence in our own rational faculties to ascertain truth"...is limited to "I think therfore I am". Unless you happen to be a phycopath everything else is a kind of negotiated reality based on the faith that the "real world" exists and is inhabited by other beings with similar perceptions. "The republic of science" is based on this philosophy and the scientific method is it's formalization, as a consequnce science seeks but does not claim to know the "truth".

The only "truth" I know is we are all in the same boat, however it's a fact of life that 90+% of people have faith in a higher power and a large chunk of the remainder are just as adamant their faith in rationalisim is more...err..umm...rational.

Despite religion's bloody history of holy wars it has served as the glue that held individual societies together since our first ancestors stood up to scratch their head and arse at the same time. The strongest, most adaptable, and just plain lucky societies, have evolved into today's vast civilizations - pity human behaviour hasn't kept up.

"the beatles weren't science nerds.

Probably not, but the "Thomas the tank engine" thing makes me think Ringo might be a closet nerd.

Einstien wasn't a Libertarian either, but Newton was certainly selfish enough to qualify. Not that there's anything wrong with being selfish, it's part of being human. Just so long as these new-fangled Libertarian's don't bitch and moan (or shoot up their school/workplace) when someone "does on to them" first.

People with the twin gifts of genius and humilty are rare (I have neither), Einstien and others such as Sagan point to a "bigger picture" when they write about humanity's place in the cosmos. OTOH we have Newton, clearly the superior "genius", scribbling a million words (literally) on the "meaning of 666" and coming up with an impressive 6x6 magic square.

"Generally, when nothing better was available, because eating them is a Bad Idea."

The reason it was considered a "BAD idea" by tribes who came into contact with other apes is that tribes saw the apes as just another sub-human tribe. Nothing special since all other tribes were also considered either "sub" or "super" human. It's the same behaviour that gives rise to what we now call "racisim", "chauvanisim" or "child abuse" depending on the target. It's also the reason that the members of one's own religion are always "special", even Atheists think they have some special insight. It human behaviour, or more precisely: The Monkeysphere.

Not sure about Africa but in SE Asia "canabilisim" is aimed at both human & ape and is still practised in parts of Papua as a kind of judicial system that is based on the good/bad spirit model, not that different to the "civilized world's" capital punishment when you think about it except that the "cannibal" has an extra parasite or two to deal with ( CJD is one that springs to mind ). I'm pretty sure when food is scarce tribal societies are seeing "evil spirits" everywhere, IMHO: "Drought is to Evil spririts" as "Oil is to Terrorists".

BTW: Here in Australia "bush meat" is anything that is not certified by the health dept. You can pick up just as many nasty parasites from eating a wild pig as you can from eating a wild dog, getting close to a Water Buffallo with TB is not a good idea. Eating wild dogs liver will give you vitimain A poisining, an unpleasant condition where the victim's skin starts peeling off. Both Scott's & Mawson's Antartic expeditions suffered when they ate the livers of their sled dogs, I'm guessing a "wild human" would rather starve than eat the dogs liver.

"out of my Church's Library."

Just to be clear on the religion thing, I belive that in every group of like minded people there are zealots that do not represent the groups core beliefs but often manage to shout the majority down and hijack the groups agenda. My own "faith" tells me that the Universe "just is" and I think that people who insist on convincing others that there is/isn't a god have simply taken logic one step to far.

"It just goes to show you that books are subjective and the observer gets to determine what the artist meant in the end."

You are in good company, to paraphrase Plato: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

You are right on the verge of realising we are ALL part of the monkeysphere and that there are as many "alternate realities" as there are people on the planet, many more if you consider other species.

<soapbox>My relatively new pet peeve is when people use the word "monkey" to mean "ape". That link you provide keeps talking about monkeys while showing pictures of apes (e.g., chimpanzees and orangutans). They even call us monkeys. We're apes, not monkeys. Both apes and monkeys (as well as lemurs) are primates, but apes are not monkeys any more than humans are orangutans.

Next on my list: to get them to call it the "Scopes Ape Trial". :)</soapbox>

"There is no messenger you cannot impeach with an attitude like that, and by impeaching the right messengers you're free to construct any sort of alternate paper-thin reality you want that can exclude any X you choose.....People who think like this drive me crazy. And there are so many of them."

You are right on the verge of realising we are ALL part of the monkeysphere and that there are as many "alternate realities" as there are people on the planet, many more if you consider other species.

"our population will hit a ceiling at 15 billion or so, which considering the huge resources we have on this planet, is nothing at all."

Fisheries collapsing like dominoes since the 80's, world's grain harvest peaked in the late 90's, expanding deserts, shrinking forests, not enough fresh water for those alive today, ect, ect, ect....not a snowball's chance in hell of reaching 15B in 100yrs time. Sure one day we may be able to terra-form other planets or make sugar directly from shit, but for the forseeable future we (and most likely our g-g-great-granchildren) are stuck here with a half-dozen or so acres of arable land per head. With 15B people it would be down to ~2 acres (and 1/2 a sardine) per person.

"our rate of population growth has rapidly decreased"

Ironically much of the slowdown came from the policy in China that this bit of /. is arguing about. The pill in the west was a technological/social revolution that had similar results.

"your entire argument is muddled and makes no more sense then some strange homeless guy ranting in the street"

Which makes me think that if resources are so plentifull then why are there so many homeless people on the streets of the country that consumes half of all the resources collected by mankind? Anyway, before I'm accused of being muddled and/or homeless, the point I think the GP was trying to make is that if we don't impose "real life" limits on ourselves then the laws of nature dictate someone or something else must do it for us. The inevitable result of any species in "plague" proportions has always been a very rapid population drop.

Disclaimer: I have two adult children and got "snipped" (felt like "bricked") after the second, for purely selfish reasons. In my country we have the #2 man in power walking around with a stupid grin on his face chanting "one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country" and handing out cheques to those that do.

"...they set it up as a negotiating tool amongst themselves."

I agree, and the above quote succinctly sums up my point. The other point I was struggling to make was: if you not a member you are expendable. I support the UN even with the UNSC(*) but I don't have any idea how they or anyone else could stop the cruelty we inflict on each other, it's simply way too easy for humans to rationalise the deeds of war into "us/good vs them/evil". Clear away the layers of civilization and we are simply territorial animals fighting for resources, we cannot help but react to fear with a dog like "we are pack" mentality because to panic and get seperated from "us" means death "or worse" (whatever that may mean to a particular individual).

(*) - Historically speaking we have been exceptionally polite to each other on a global scale since we learned how to destroy cities at the "push of a button" half a centry ago. Even the millions of dead and "scorched earth" of Stalin and Mao did not tempt anyone to push it simply because everyone fears panic in a "mexican stand-off". (Strangely I've come full circle, my original post was about the hyperbole of comapring "Ima DinnerJacket" to Hitler and the anti-war movement to Chamberlin.)

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.h tml

Really, I can't say any more. Just read that essay.

It's just because the middle east is outside of his monkeysphere.

The original screenplay for Alien 3 brought them to Earth. For some reason, it was dropped and the crappy prison story was used instead. It may have been for bugetary reasons. Sigourney took over as executive producer.

The following may have been the original screen (written by William Gibson): http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/alien3scr ipt.html

They were so close to making the original screen play that toys were made based on it. The aliens take on some of the properties of the host. It's why the alien in the produced version ran on all fours, it was from a dog. Here's a bull-alien that was made into a toy: http://www.actiontoys.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?S creen=PROD&Store_Code=123&Product_Code=ALIENK-06C

I agree though, having them come to Earth would kick ass.

*WARNING* I think it's relevant to your post and this topic, but the site is completely filled with advertisements and pop-ups.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/censorsh ip.html

"I don't think it's unfair to say that it is a reasonable standard of evidence which should cause us to at least question if man and dinosaurs did live at the same time."

This is where science and opinion radically diverge, that those artifacts represent or describe dinosours is but one interpretation of said artifacts, at best science can authenticate claims such as the artfacts age, composition, method of manafacture, source of raw materials, trade of artifact between tribes, ect.

From direct observation of the remains of dinosours science can demonstrate the youngest known remains predate the oldest know human remains by tens of millions of years. This direct observation far outweighs any anecdotal observations from some long forgotten paintings and text, the interpretation of which is limited only by man's imagination and flair for story telling.

In other words, since established science specifically contradicts the creationist interpretation of the bible and other relics, it is fair to say that no human has ever layed eyes on a living dinosour, the idea therefore is not even a reasonable interpretation of their own evidence when taken in context of what science does "know" about humans and dinosours.

As for the idea that finding ET would eliminate religion I find hard to belive that religious behaviour can be espunged from our species, even pigeons devise random rituals in an attempt to "influence" a random reward which suggests the basic "wetware feature" is deeply rooted in the evolutionary tree. It's hard enough for some humans to acknowlage humans from other religions posess what they call a soul, let alone contemplate an animal or an alien may posess these "god given" wetware features.

As far a science goes the "soul" and mind are emergent properties of a sophisticated simulation of reality calculated by our brain. Inside us all is an etheral thing described variously as mind, soul, consiousness, ego, id, ect, that to the best of our knowledge appears to be the embodiment of an ongoing calculation, one that can be turned off temporarily by getting really shitfaced or permenently by dropping dead. When you look at "reality" this way it comes as no surprise that mathematics and the scientific method are so effective at modeling the RealWord(TM). What maths and science "model" is not one "reality" but a common thread of perception amoungst the majority of individual "realities".

Having said that: I agree that the fact I exists at all is a "miracle" in so much as there will not and should never be a one-size-fits-all answer to the philosophers question of "why?".

Monkeysphere link needed methinks... http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.h tml/

Gorilla skins are probably the best "off the rack" fit nature provides, let's face it - Chimpas are too small and the sleaves on an Oragutang are way too long.

Seriously though, INA-Anthorpologist but I would have thought that prototype clothing was made from animal skins? Early Europeans are known to have used whale skins to make portable huts and what little is left of tribal cultures today still wear animal skins or plated leaves.

TFA - Another thing to take into consideration is that tribal people have a strong tendancy to look at other tribes as an inferior race of humans. The point here is that tribes who come into regular contact with great apes refer to them as an inferior tribe.

Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to racisim but I acknowledge I live inside the MonkeySphere.

All I can say is, "huh?"

For every example you can name for which this might be true, I'm confident there's one for which it isn't. The one you did choose is completely ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people just snap one day and start having gay affairs because they're too morally sheltered? Isn't it possible that.. I don't know... they're actually just gay?

When it comes to porn, which is really what this is about, for a lot of people (perhaps most people), a little bit doesn't inoculate, it's the beginning of an addiction. See, for example, this. (NSFW, by the way.) It's obviously not very scientific, but I think it definitely makes the point.

I had an insight this week, prompted by another slashdot discussion (don't remember about what or by whom) where the idea of the monkeysphere was explained: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.h tml
Basically, I thought: if there are problems of the type "tragedy of the commons" such as, who's going to pay taxes to solve global problems that are not immediately felt in your own "monkeysphere", and we as average humans don't have the mental capacity to understand that such problems are also OUR problems, then, well, we're not going to make it, independent of which specific "doomsday scenario" becomes imminent.
We're now with enough people on earth that our impact is felt, and if we don't manage to maintain some kind of dynamic equilibrium (on- as well as off-planet), then it's up to the next species to have a go :-). It's not even important which problem will do us in; probably the first one that rears its head.
If we as people elect the kind of leaders that say "it's those other people's fault, there in that other country, outside of your monkeysphere" instead of "you all have to pay more taxes and take these other measures so that we can tackle this important global problem we've identified and reached consensus on", then we get what we deserve.

Talking about "warped ideologies", what about the millions of starving children in Africa? They are not dying because of "communism" (or even "Communism"). No, it is capitalism that is doing them in.

The issue is much broader and deeper than "capitalism". Quite seriously, I think that the monkeysphere theory explains this better. Regardless of the ideologies at play, when people who don't know each other and don't belong to the same community exchange goods and services, it's common not to worry much about the needs of the other party: each party is considered responsible for themselves. This is human nature, not "capitalism". There may be some relatively wealthy people who have the luxury of worrying about whether people they don't know are or aren't being exploited, but the average person really doesn't have that luxury.

What capitalism does is allow this general indifference to strangers to scale up, if you will: so that by handing over $1.99 for a pack of tube socks at Walmart, I can efficiently exploit child labor (etc.) in a foreign country that I don't know anything about, and unless I have an unusually well-developed conscience, I don't even have to think about it. So the vaunted efficiency of capitalism is also a major flaw: it's efficient, and that efficiency cuts both ways, amplifying the human attitude to people outside their own group (family, town, country, religion...)

These issues are rooted in human nature, and no ideology will overcome that on a large scale. If you want to deal with it, you have to build realistic ways of handling it into whatever system you're using. Neither communism nor capitalism does that.

A government that is "for the people" is by definition "socialisim".

However in practice even governments with the best of intentions can only manage to govern "for some of the people". Human nature ensures "equality" will ever happen but it remains a noble "goal".

The comparitive worth of government regulation and intervention on everything from spotted owls to the reserve bank should be judged by quantitative statistics not vauge qualitative "ism's". Of course then the problem is how do you put a dollar value on the benifits derived from spotted owls as a wild species, a pacemaker that gives granny a few more active retirement years, a picture from the Hubble, a public library?

The "war on drugs" can pretty much be traced back to the crusade of one Harry J. Anslinger. However it was still motivated by racisim as it is today, eg: $2B in attack choppers to Burma's miltary junta in the 90's, to be used to "intercept and destroy drugs reaching US shores". How many Apache helicopters patrol beverly-hills, would it be acceptable to blow up a small village in the US to aid the drug war, how many small villages?

I do however agree with the idea of a "war on terror", we should start by eradicating the sources of terror that we have some control over. ie: Take away the right of democratic governments to kill anyone (including their own citizens) or to declare war against anyone, for reasons other than the immediate self defence of the nation. In short give up on state sponsered revenge. (yeah I know, the concept of equality in a tribal species is a pointless waste of time)

"...those who take advantage of the opportunities presented to them in western society tend to reproduce at a much lower rate than those who get hammered and start breeding while the more capable are still in education"

I understand what you are saying and largely agree but I kind of object to the "more capable" tag, perhaps "more mature", "more fortunate", "more materialistic" or just plain "wiser".

Wisdom and comfort are the twin goals of many humans, and often the reason for desiring wisdom is that it's seen as a path to comfort. Evolution does not have goals, it has survivours called "genes" who's lineage goes back billions of years, these "genes" are actually just patterns of interacting atoms originally created in exploding stars. "Strong people", "loyal people", "pious people", "educated people", ect, are the result of conceptual tools that humans use for dealing with each other, the deep rooted tribal tendencies found in our genectic makeup appeared long before our particular species did.

"....but really stop running yourselves down, have a shower and go out and breed people!"

I did that while my "more capable" friends finished high school, some went all the way into thier thirties totally clueless about kids or the value of a buck. I am now 47, my youngest is 21 and is getting married next year. Having worn collars of both colurs for a minimum of 15yrs I can attest that a good education can buy you time via a healthy paypack, intellectual satisfaction via interesting work, and the comfort of not fighting the checkout-chick to the death over a 50 cent overcharge. Personally, formal education doesn't rate highly with me in a relationship - after all, even the most "retarded" red-neck can teach you something.

I belive in the monkeysphere theory of human behaviour, and it definitely backs up what you are saying. Only the other day I was arguing the very same point aginst someone who thought that control over resources, territory and labour were not the root cause of war.

"Until there is some kind of one world order (God forbid), this will be the way of things."

The more we understand our own failings, the better equiped we are to survive. I think the major GHG emmitters are quite capable of solving the problem without resorting to a 1984 senario, after all smaller versions of the same idea have worked for other pollutants such as lead and CFC's. I also belive human population has peaked, the window of opportunity to avoid an armagedon style "population correction" due to GW, peak oil and "the sixth great extinction" arriving mid to late 21st century is getting shorter one day at a time.

I don't believe companies with more than 120-150 people are stable - once they breach this range empire building occurs and massive uncontrollable monsters result. If a company truly needs more than 150 people it should split into two and partner on the project at hand. I believe this is a human condition - humans work best in tribes where they can personally know all of the members.

All of this might be completely and utterly wrong. But it's my hypothesis.

"The land captured by the Germans in that war was definitely a welcome bonus, but they didn't fight for land."

Ok my history is a bit shakey here, but Hitler's early propoganda machine was all about how Germany "was robbed" by the treaty that ended WW1. That early propoganda enabled him to walk into Austria as a hero without the need to fight, it was a huge publicity coup.

"They fought for the ideals of the Nazi party."

So what were their "ideals"? Hitler was leading using a "cult of personality", as do most despots.

"an expansionist Ideology"

Yes, and influence over territory and control of resources (including human resources) is what they stand to gain with this expansion.

Most modern wars are about ideology. Starting with WW2.

WW2 was about the axis powers attempting to exert control over the entire globe, in fact the 20th centrury saw a few people make a decent attempt at becoming the first "ruler of the world". All sides in WW2 used ideology and propoganda as "spot the enemy" trainning material for the general population.

"[The IRA fought for] the right to self determination within their homeland"

Yes, they sought to remove Britsh control over a chunk of territory so they could exert influence over it themelves.

The most entertaining explaination I have ever heard as to why "the general population" not only tolerates this destructive behaviour from their leaders, but actively partcipates in it, is give by the monkeysphere

• Randi.org
• Popular Mechanics
• blog

You know nothing about me and have just done to me what you accuse me of doing to heroin addicts, welcome to the monkeyshpere my friend.

"People in this world WANT more misery"

No, people want to aliviate their own "misery" first, their monkeysphere comes next, the rest of humanity is "beyond" their capacity for caring (except maybe thru charity where someone does "something good" on your behalf).

The current situation is a whole lot of passionate people fighting for thier own interests, then the interests of their monkeysphere and finally for other groups such as voters and "the rest". Does it ever cross anyone's mind that one man's hero is another man's villian. Even Hitler had plenty of public support but this does not mean German's are "evil". It's just that "at the time" Hitler seemed to be looking after Germany pretty good, what with capitalists from around the world investing in the country and Hitler building a strong military, things were "just peachy" compared to the rest of the planet.

The "international community" is a collection of nation states, many of them capable of wiping out our species entirely, all of them looking out for thier nation's "self interest". With diminishing oil reserves, the collapse of fisheries and other bad news about the future of humanity I don't see how these self interested "states" can avoid blowing each other up. Democracy has become an excuse for fascism, kidnapping a soldier is provocation, to retaliate by kiddnaping half of a democratically elected government and destroying the only power plant servicing 1.4 million people?

The west is supposed to be living under the shadow of terror, so how come the vast majority of terrorfied people I see on my TV are arabic?

Wow. Seriously, why does it matter to you? I think you need an intervention.

...the more they remain the same.

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/manifest o.html

food for thought...and nutritious food at that.

...the more they remain the same.

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/manifest o.html

food for thought...and nutritious food at that.

Ahh, you must be a scholar of the principles of the monkeysphere.

Agreed... when the company is below a certain size, everybody can exist within the same monkeysphere, and several hundred thousand years of social evolution help things along. In much larger organizations, multiple monkeyspheres form, leading to indifference and inefficiency at best, or low-level tribal warfare at worst.

Ever played Resident Evil? Ammo starvation sucks, I don't want to have to knife 40 zombies in the head just so I might have enough bullets to kill the incredibly jumpy boss.

Some movies are like that, some are the other way around. In any event, ammo starvation sucks. This is a hilarious read on games see number 13.

I'm all for Nintendo's new console. Its cheap, it will have amazing games AND they're not trying to make it the center of your digital home.

Yet another desperate shill for the Nintendo Wii in a story which is not about the Nintendo Wii. "Amazing games"??? How many Wii games have you played so far? Oh, that's right. Zero. No games have come out for it yet. The console itself hasn't even come out yet. All you've seen is mocked-up demos on a tricked-out game cube.

Looks like somebody else needs an intervention.

P.S. I'm not a Sony fan either. The PS3 really does look like it's going to be a steaming, nutty, light-brown lump of turd.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/fanboy.h tml

scroll down to point 2....

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/fanboy.h tml

scroll down to point 2....

Four replies in to the very first thread of a PS3 story, and already a post shilling for Nintendo. Just about the same thing happens in every X-Box 360 thread.

You need to read this.

kthxbye.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/fanboy.h tml

Reading the headline minutes after reading this sure got a chuckle out of me.