$35,000? in Norway that's hardly enough for a round of beer.

ANTINOUS: as said by other posters, Japan is normally incredibly safe, it has the only cities in the world where I've known people to leave their doors unlocked, if you dropped your wallet you would have a pretty good chance of getting it back, and there is almost no chance of anyone reacting violently towards you under any circumstances (well, within reason right?).
However, the Yakusa are a different kettle of fish (they are proper gangsters after all). A friend of a friend got shot by a Yakusa while he was there.
BASTARDNAMBAN: drugs are everywhere? wow, i must have been looking in the wrong places =) But seriously, you can find drugs, but the point is you really have to look (and go to the clubs run by the Yakusa). Certainly not a drugs culture and no drugs on anything like the scale you'd find in any large town or city in Europe. The amount of hookers is rather unsettling though.
End.

Cory, for calling something English rather than British you shall henceforth be known as American.

Re: Public transport in Europe.

It's not really an honour system, commuters are making a trade off between how much it costs to buy a ticket, and the cost of a fine/likelihood of being caught if they don't.

In most of the ex Soviet states the cost of getting on a tram or metro is so reasonable it's not really worth the risk, whereas in Scandinavia public transport costs are really, really high, so it's possibly more worth the risk.

The annoying thing is that in the UK public transport is shockingly inadequate, shockingly expensive, and if i get on a train i have to produce my ticket a minimum of 3 times before i complete a journey.

Bah!

Prince Philip is about the only member of the royal family I actually like, he has provided us with so much amusement over the years. I don't find any of his comments offensive, and it seems most of the people his comments are directed at don't find them offensive either.

I am Scottish and his comment to the driving instructor only goes to show he has some experience of "the natives" (i could take issue with the Anglo-centric term "Queen of England" in the article though).

Remember this man is worshipped as a god by some cargo-cultists, maybe you'd best not piss him off too much =)

Prince Philip is about the only member of the royal family I actually like, he has provided us with so much amusement over the years. I don't find any of his comments offensive, and it seems most of the people his comments are directed at don't find them offensive either.

I am Scottish and his comment to the driving instructor only goes to show he has some experience of "the natives" (i could take issue with the Anglo-centric term "Queen of England" in the article though).

Remember this man is worshipped as a god by some cargo-cultists, maybe you'd best not piss him off too much =)

@ JLBRAUN

“This means that given a society of armed men, the nicest, most forgiving, non-envious will tend to win. Criminals, while they get short-term gain by repeatedly defecting from the social contract, are eventually eliminated via retaliation. If gun control removes the ability to retaliate from some members, repeated defectors win. If you attempt to force the "always cooperate" on everyone, that works until *just one person* gains the ability to use force and defect, and she wins everything.”

Uhm, no….for the Tit for Tat strategy to work as you suggest, each player would require a perfect knowledge of who has been nice or nasty. This is clearly not the case with criminals in a real society. In Game Theory models where there is not perfect knowledge, arise more complex and selfish strategies than you are suggesting. Most criminals take pains to not advertise their identities to their victims. I also hope that it is not your intention to imply that we should “eliminate” all criminals?

To be honest I find your post, and your reasoning a bit weird.

@ Remmelt
"This can only improve education, as well as consumation."

Ahem

It is fairly well established that the move away from a strictly-vegetarian diet was one of the defining changes between the genus Homo, and our ancestors (Australopithecines et al.); the increased energy diet allowed the development of a larger, energy-intensive brain, allowing at the same-time a decrease in the size of other energy-intensive organs (the digestive system).
Hunting itself may also have been a driving force in the increase in hominid intelligence; you generally need to be smarter to hunt animals than to pick fruit from trees and dig for tubers; it would also no doubt have encouraged the development of language, as well as tool use.
However, I am not suggesting that modern vegans/vegetarians are ape-men; a modern understanding of human nutritional requirements and what constitutes a healthy balanced diet, combined with today’s wide choice of food-stuffs means that in our society there is no reason why you cannot be vegetarian or vegan and perfectly healthy (although even now I know vegans who are liable to pass out every now and again) The only real excuse for eating meat now is that it is tasty. And it is. I don’t have a problem with meat eating per se; I do however have a big problem with modern farming methods (dairy farming most of all).

@#9

"Jew" is usually seen as a racial grouping, not just a religious one; "Christian" isn't.
Christian would normally of course refer to someone who believes that Jesus was the son of god, but this guy is using it to mean a follower of Christ's teachings. There's nothing wrong with that IMO.
The man obviously likes what Jesus had to say, but doesn't believe in imaginary friends.

Re: cefeida; Mymble and Little My are Mymbles, not trolls; Mymble is the mother of Little My (who I used to have a mortal fear of from the very freaky fuzzy felt puppet series).
The moomin series are childrens' books as they should be: Tove Jansson clearly didn't believe that children are stupid.

Noen, I am inclined to agree with you, if we make a distinction between evolutionary altruism, which increases an organisms inclusive fitness in some way, and "true altruism" which I'm assuming you mean would be altruism with no fitness benefit at all. Then I too am sceptical that this "true altruism" is present in humans or other species.
However, I would like to hear your arguments for natural selection not operating at the group level?