Slashdot Log In
How the City Hurts Your Brain
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jan 06, 2009 05:24 AM
from the but-not-paris dept.
from the but-not-paris dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The city has always been an engine of intellectual life and the 'concentration of social interactions' is largely responsible for urban creativity and innovation. But now scientists are finding that being in an urban environment impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on a crowded city street, the brain is less able to hold things in memory and suffers from reduced self-control. 'The mind is a limited machine,' says psychologist Marc Berman. 'And we're beginning to understand the different ways that a city can exceed those limitations.' Consider everything your brain has to keep track of as you walk down a busy city street. A city is so overstuffed with stimuli that we need to redirect our attention constantly so that we aren't distracted by irrelevant things. This sort of controlled perception — we are telling the mind what to pay attention to — takes energy and effort. Natural settings don't require the same amount of cognitive effort. A study at the University of Michigan found memory performance and attention spans improved by 20 percent after people spent an hour interacting with nature. 'It's not an accident that Central Park is in the middle of Manhattan,' says Berman. 'They needed to put a park there.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good exercise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because its more distracting doesn't mean its bad for you.
Re:Good exercise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, I've seen people drive a car while putting on make up, talking on the phone, reading the paper, and drinking a cup of coffee all at the same time and have yet to see a single car accident in any city I've ever lived in. And we've never heard of someone not paying attention on the street and stepping in front of a car/bus.
Hell, my kids tell me that they can do homework while watching TV and chatting online.
Yes, distractions are not bad for you large cup of coffee with cream and an egg mcmuffin please and they actually help.
Parent
Re:Good exercise? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes! Whether distractions are bad depends completely on what you are doing (or how you do it).
For instance, people who use Python need a fair bit of distraction to keep their minds occupied and thus find some kind of satisfaction while working in that highly restrictive environment. But people who program with Perl need a low distraction environment while they exercise their creative potential.
There is so much more to programming than whitespace can contain :-)
Parent
Re:Good exercise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes it does. The ancient equivalent of a city would be on the veldt surrounded by predators. You are constantly on edge looking for the flash of colour which could mean you're on the menu. Your ears are straining to hear the danger signals through the constant noise. Constant exposure to such stress is very wearing and can result in various nervous malfunctions and lead to physical manifestations. Ever heard of hypertension ?
I recently (6 months ago) gave up driving a truck (18 wheeler for the US residents) because although the physical act of driving was easy, the mental stress of being abused by just about everybody else on the road led to me being pissed off the whole time. Once you get into that condition, you need serious training in Buddhism to learn to relax. I haven't had the training, and I still can't drive (even a car) without getting stressed almost immediately, and it has even affected me as a pedestrian. All this is happening to a person who in 2001/2002 drove across the US 3 times (FL -> WA, WA -> FL, FL -> CA) in a month and a half for fun, then drove almost all the way around Australia, then travelled all the way round NZ by bus. Hint: it's not the driving or travelling.
The human mind can't stand up to being attacked all the time. My condition is starting to become agoraphobic as it is impossible to go anywhere without encountering traffic. I recently spent time in Scotland [google.co.uk], well away from large population centres, and it was like a large dose of valium. I was completely relaxed within a day or so. Unfortunately I still have to earn a living so moving there permanently isn't an option right now. And not having worked for 6 months means my savings are almost exhausted and my options are dwindling to zero.
Just because you don't notice the effect, it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. It is cumulative and one day it will hit you hard. Your brain gets used to the default state of mind being stress, and suddenly one day it gets stuck there. Very hard to get back from, and very hard to withstand real stress when it occurs, because you have so little energy left in reserve.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can. But I'm not sure what that means. Can humans do this or am I Vulcan as well? We should have a poll over this.
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm feeling very ambivalent about this study. Sure, walking down a busy street requires concentration. And? If you look at it this way, it's actively improving your concentration.
The truth is that most people work in office buildings that are not that busy, and they only spend a tiny fraction of their day in a busy and distracting environment. Honestly, this sounds like a study that was trying to find evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Funny)
The truth is that most people work in office buildings that are not that busy, and they only spend a tiny fraction of their day in a busy and distracting environment.
An office environment is not distracting? Have you ever heard of e-mail, youtube or slashdot?
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Insightful)
Or shared cubicles. Or cubicles where you can hear EVERYTHING your coworkers are doing. Or the noise of dozens or hundreds of PCs.
Since the city is supposed to hurt the brain, can I get a doctors' note to go work in the country instead of the office?
Seriously, it's no wonder that I get more work done when I work from home than from the office.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Interesting)
For me, it's the opposite. I find it easier to be productive at work, since there are fewer distractions.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Insightful)
Shared cubes? Cubes are insulting enough. If I were offered a job in a shared cube, I would laugh, walk out the door, then shit in front of their door. That's called reciprocity.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:4, Interesting)
I read this article two people were having a conference call with a speakerphone about 8 feet from me. It sucked, and I could barely focus on this article, let alone the technical article that I need to read and understand to do my job.
Distractions are bad.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:4, Funny)
Consider this the post-modern, performance art way of proving my point.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:4, Funny)
No. Certainly not the last one; it sounds like somewhere freaks would live.
Because the test subjects' brains were so bored during the *walk in the park* they jump for joy when given something to do. Ever see a hamster given a wheel for the first time?
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Interesting)
Your arguments reeks of truthiness but turns out to not be true. It turns out that relaxing your mind and focusing on single tasks promotes good health and positive mood.
This has been scientifically demonstrated [psychosoma...dicine.org] (The quick summary of the above link, for those too lazy to dig through the reference is that researchers found that a group of people receiving some mindfullness mediation training showed improvements in mood and in immune response compared to a control group.)
If I may spin the article in this context, it seems that having a quiet mind is a very, very good thing, and that quiet, natural settings are more conducive to quiet minds that busy urban environments.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Insightful)
Except the more things you have to concentrate on and worry about at once, the lower your attention span becomes.
Parent
Re:I find it stimulating (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a city person, and I wholly agree with the study (personally). But then again I think some degree of silence and solitude are necessary for the intellectual life (actually for focus, with is necessary for the intellectual life).
I grew up in the city, but had the good fortune of going to college in the boonies, and I could tell the difference. A 20 minute hike would put you in the woods, completely away from anyone. There were no distractions. I could actually sit and read (in a deep way, not in the leisurely way) for hours without anyone talking to me ("what are you reading" is the most damnable question ever, btw).
Part of this was because the lack of people, cars, etc... And part of it was due to the change in context. In the city we have constant reminders of our bust life, escaping the city escapes this context.
It always is nice to get out of the range of the nearest cell-tower, off the roads, and away from the mindless chatter of others.
For some reason I feel that the people who are against this study are the typical Americans who are frightened of silence since it allows introspection. Most people in cities, IMHO, exist largly as interactions, and are frightened on some level of what remains (if anything) when there is no more superfluous stimulus.
Which brings me too; why the hell is there canned music EVERYWHERE in cities?
Yes, I'm a slightly pissy misanthrope, so this might have something to do with it. And yes, I grew up in the 5th largest metropolitan area in the US, so I'm not a country boy.
Parent
Just visit Manhattan (Score:5, Interesting)
Just head to Manhattan and look at the people around you. Everyone is constantly glancing around at everything. It's not just the tourists either--very nearly every single person is constantly shifting his gaze from point to point like a coked out monkey with ADD. It's one of the things that I hate about New York.
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:5, Funny)
Is the damage reversible, or do New Yorkers stay like that indefinitely?
Parent
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably they eventually manage to recover at least somewhat, but I can tell you from personal experience that they remain permanently insufferable. Ask anyone who has lived in New York about pizza, or public transportation, or pretty much anything else for that matter and the conversation will eventually turn to how much better New York is than wherever it is they currently happen to be. One wonders why they don't just go back and stay there.
I have yet to meet an ex-New Yorker who isn't excessively proud of the fact that he once lived in "The City". They're worse than Texans.
Parent
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:4, Insightful)
Londoners have the same disease, to a slightly lesser extent.
I'm moving away from *my* City, London, in a few months and I just hope I don't turn into one of those people.
"Oh, well when I was in London..."
"In London you can get..."
"Well in London these things are open 24 hours..."
"What, you don't have any sushi/thai/dim-sum restaurants within walking distance?"
"Oh but in London I could always find..."
Yeah.
Parent
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it's very hard to not become one of those people. I did. But I personally can affirm the story in my personal case.
I lived in San Francisco for 7 years after university, and became accustomed to urban life - having things open 24 hours, having china town a few steps away, having everything so close and easy to get to. On the other hand I always felt distracted, stressed, and like I was unable to do half the things I wanted because of crowds, traffic, too long of lines, waiting lists for restaurant reservations, you name it. I was not being very productive as I was always thinking about the logistical ramifications.
I left. I went to the opposite corner of North America - I bought a cabin on a remote lake in north central Ontario Canada - no phone line - electricity was solar and a generator - heat was a wood stove and a fireplace - internet was via 2-way Satellite - I can get in my car and drive an hour in any given direction and see no more than 5 cars. No more lines. No more traffic. No more logistical nightmares. When your biggest concern for a week is if you should drive in for provisions on Wednesday or Thursday depending on the weather, and if there's enough firewood split to last the month out. However I did catch myself saying "When I was in SF, I could get Chinese delivery in 20 minutes, and if I wanted a part for something I was working on there were so many stores to choose from!".
I lived there for 5 years - the most productive and happy 5 years of my life - but in the end it did get a little lonely and I've now moved to the fringes of a small city (100,000 ppl) - I'm still surrounded by trees and not people - but now I'm only a 10 minute drive to stores and supplies - rather than close to 2 hours. I still feel able to think here - there's nowhere near the horrible stress of urban life.
Parent
Re:Well, no... (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to have spent the last year in a coma. Let me bring you up to date. Financial market crashed. Banks bailed out. Wall Street decimated.
It's also noisy. Maybe they should do some maintenance, and switch over to a rubber-tired system.
Must be all those pollutants in the river. Maybe they've permanently altered your taste buds.
Seriously, the air absolutely stinks and the streets are filthy. About the only thing going for it is it ISN'T New Jersey.
Parent
Re:Well, no... (Score:5, Informative)
That would be difficult, since the NYC subways use the rails for grounding. The main reason the subways in NYC are so noisy is the speed that the trains operate at, which is typically 10-20MPH faster than other subway systems in America (which is why similarly old systems, like the Boston subways, are so much quieter). There is an effort with the newest subway trains to reduce noise, but that is mainly aimed at the passengers riding the train, not those standing on the platforms.
One of the things that the NYC subway system has going for it, that other systems do not really have, is the ability to operate 24x7x365 with few disruptions in service. There are several reasons for this, but the primary two are the distributed nature of the control system (which is unfortunately due to be centralized as part of a plan to install computers to replace the ancient equipment they use) and the large number of lines and tracks which make reroutes possible. It is possible to perform maintenance on the NYC subways, and in fact, this is done on nights and weekends, which is why there are route changes every weekend, with the exception of holidays.
"Must be all those pollutants in the river. Maybe they've permanently altered your taste buds."
NYC's water supply does not come from the rivers that surrounding Manhattan. The water in NYC comes from a large reservoir in the mountains in the middle of New York State, and is carried to the city using three enormous pipes. The tap water is actually among the cleanest in the US, and NYC is one of the few places where the majority of contaminants in tap water come from old pipes in the final stages of delivery, rather than the supply itself.
"Seriously, the air absolutely stinks and the streets are filthy."
This is not unique to NYC, it is the case in any large city. Large cities always have been and always will be more polluted than small cities and towns. When you have millions of people living in such a small area, it is difficult to keep the ground and air pristine.
Parent
Re:Well, no... (Score:4, Interesting)
Around the same period, the MTA attempted to bring the first phase of the new, computerized central control system online; this was the radio coordination system, which is currently running equipment that was installed in the 1960s. The computerized system crashed when three simultaneous emergency calls were made -- a typical situation in a system with more than 400 stations and a hundred or so trains in operation at any given time -- and communication in the entire system was shut down while they reactivated the old system. Imagine, in a few years, if a fire occurs in the control center -- the entire system would be out of order until the older control rooms were unlocked and reactivated. As a case in point, there was a fire in a control room in the 1980s, much more serious than a relay room like the one at Chambers St., and a service along one of the subway lines was shut down until control could be transferred to other locations (this was a complex move at that time). No other lines were affected by the fire, because the other control rooms operated completely independently, from an electronic perspective (they are coordinated by phone).
People just assume that technology from the 1920-30s, which runs the majority of the system, must in inadequate and that upgrading it will make the transit system better. Experience shows that this is simply not true. The 1930s vacuum tube relay equipment, which is controlled with electromechanical lever machines, is remarkably reliable, and gets the job done just fine. The only real deficiency is that there is no electronic method for tracking multiple lines on a single segment of track, but this is made up for through a system of buttons installed at major station stops, which allow train operators to indicate their route to a control room when it is necessary to do so (as it is at points where lines are separated and sent down different tracks). In some cases, even that is overkill, because the control room sits at the exact point where trains stop. Computerization offers little advantage beyond more accurate accounting and schedule measurements.
I am not against the idea of more modern equipment. It is certainly the case that a computer could calculate the placement of trains in maintenance yards more efficiently than a human can, or even the placement of trains on relay tracks at locations where several lines are terminated. The current plan, however, is deeply flawed in that it seeks to centralize everything and leave the old system locked up for emergencies. Central command systems might work well on smaller systems like Chicago or Boston, but given the enormous size of the NYC transit system, it seems severely misguided; no surprise, though, since the MTA has not made many good decisions over the past few years.
Parent
Re:Well, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was born in NYC and am still living there currently. I also get really annoyed with the all the people who think New York is the greatest thing ever too, but you don't find me bashing it every chance I get on Slashdot. The amount of disdain you have for New Yorkers borders on the amount of homophobia you would find from a closeted homosexual. I'm not saying you're a closet New Yorker, but that's just what it comes off as... just saying...
Parent
Re:Well, no... (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, psychoanalyze much? Typical New Yorker.
Parent
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone is constantly glancing around at everything.
Probably trying to avoid muggers and eye contact with the crazies.
Parent
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:5, Insightful)
I find that people who have this view of Manhattan only know it from movies and TV shows. Generally, I have found people in Manhattan to be pleasant and helpful ... although one must make allowances for their adaptations to living in large crowds. The first time I went into Grand Central Station, I got swept along by a crowd that had just been disgorged by a subway entrance. My experience of Manhattan crowds is different from the GP's; generally I find the bulk of them very focused on going about whatever their business is. The sheer size of the crowds means that you can probably find any kind of behavior you're looking for. I find I can observe more people walking down a Manhattan block than I normally do in the course of a month.
Generally speaking, Manhattan feels as safe as any other city, especially if we are talking from Central Park south during the day time. There are a lot of human friendly aspects to Manhattan's urban landscape. First and foremost are the very very wide sidewalks, which other cities would do well to emulate. This gives plenty of space to large volumes of pedestrian traffic, fed by a dense public transit network. This creates a vibrant street level commercial economy, which may seem overwhelming at first, until you realize that a Manhattan block is like a city in miniature. You don't have to walk a mile to find something you want; as often as not it's no more than a block away; further and you take transit.
Overall, I find Manhattan to be very comfortable and convenient, once you've adapted a bit to the rhythm and pace. I wonder if the study was perhaps confounded by several things. First, are the subjects accustomed to walking in an urban landscape? If you repeated the experiment a dozen times, would the score for city walkers change? Secondly, are the routes chosen pedestrian friendly? If not the results may simply reflect the results of stress.
I don't deny that nature is important, and don't doubt that experiencing natural settings regularly is a contributor to mental health. But in many ways, dense urban landscapes are both good for people and the environment, when compared to sprawl.
Parent
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Just visit Manhattan (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. The tourists are the only ones looking at everything trying to catch it all in, not the locals going about their daily life. The rest of us are just avoiding eye contact and only paying attention to where we are going and what's going to intersect our path getting there.
Parent
actually somewhat true (Score:5, Insightful)
A disproportionate number of top universities, relative to population, are in rural areas and small towns: Ithaca, New York; Urbana-Champaign, Illinois; Hanover, New Hampshire; Durham, North Carolina; Terre Haute, Indiana; etc.
Many of those that do find themselves in large cities were actually founded way out in the countryside, too, but have since been swallowed---Columbia was sort of in the middle of nowhere in far-upper Manhattan, most of the Boston universities are in Cambridge rather than Boston proper, Stanford was way off from San Francisco, Caltech was considerably outside Los Angeles, etc.
Parent
What natural setting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural settings don't require the same amount of cognitive effort.
A jungle or other wild forest does. It is living in cultivated land (farmland or even managed forests) that requires an unnatural low amount of cognitive effort.
Re:What natural setting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What natural setting? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not only incorrect, but it is also not the point of the original article. First of all, I will address your specific statements. Being in the wilderness is not less stressful than being in civilization. That flies in the face of our entire human history. You, a modern human, only enjoy the wilderness now as a convenience brought to you by the comforts of modern technology. Where and how do you get your food, shelter, water, safety? It is illogical to compare being run over in the street with some romanticized notion of idyllic nature, because you have been far removed from primary threats to existence such as disease, predation, exposure, and starvation.
Second, the point of the article is that urban environments are cognitively distracting compared to a natural setting. That may be true but it is also pointless. What is the base level of cognitive ability? Did the study compare attention and mental focus for individuals who are simply sitting comfortably in their home doing nothing? It stands to reason that if there is a correlation between environment and cognition, the most safe and peaceful environment would provide the best result. But I object to this kind of weakly disguised propaganda that continues to romanticize and idealize the superiority of "nature." Don't get me wrong, I enjoy being outdoors. But I have no illusions that my ability to enjoy being outdoors is ENTIRELY predicated upon the fact that my safety and well-being is facilitated by the comforts of modern human civilization and technology.
I accept the fact that I don't have the ability to be tossed into the wild and survive. I don't need to. Moreover, I don't WANT to. Why would I want to spend most of my day worrying about where my next meal is going to come from, or providing for basic safety? That is how we all lived thousands of years ago, and that is how many people in underdeveloped countries continue to live today. There is a very good reason why humans discovered the benefits of civilization long ago. The notion that civilization is evil and we should embrace nature and return to a nomadic life is yet another insult to those who live in squalor and desperation among us.
Parent
Re:What natural setting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone: Nature is feels safer and is less distracting than busy, urban environments.
You: That's wrong! The only reason you find nature relaxing is that you have the comforts and conveniences of modern civilization to protect you and to go back to.
Someone else: It's easier to think clearly in nature than in a crowded, loud place like cities.
You: No, nature is not superior to civilization, and the only reason you think so is that you're romanticizing nature while taking advantage of all the benefits of society.
It's very true that being immersed in nature would likely be much less relaxing (and less distraction-free) if not for civilization, but does that change the fact that nature is indeed relaxing for many (most?) people? And that is indeed a better place to think (for many)? Nobody's suggesting stripping naked, smearing ourselves with mud, running into the woods, and hunting deer with a stick, but thanks to modern civilization much of nature is a safe, relatively tranquil place which is good for deep thinking.
Parent
Re:Anecdote about 5th Av. (Score:5, Funny)
I was walking on 51st St. and suddenly a ladybug landed on my hand.
On 51st St, it might've been a gentleman bug dressed as a ladybug. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Parent
Re:What natural setting? (Score:5, Funny)
bush, bush, tree, bush, tiger, bush, oh wait...
Parent
Brain Overload (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Brain Underload - Brain Overload (Score:4, Informative)
a proposal was floated that suggested that pilots be allowed/encouraged to play video games during those 'down times'
Maybe a flight sim?
Parent
They needed to put a park there. (Score:5, Insightful)
What a bunch of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Central Park was put on the edge of the city when it was built. In the 19th century people tended to think ahead more.
Second, I would bet the author has never actually been in a truly wild setting, where there are animals around that might hunt you. The wild is no place to be oblivious.
Third, note this from the original article (really a press release) :
The researchers also tested the same theory by having subjects sit inside and look at pictures of either downtown scenes or nature scenes and again the results were the same: when looking at photos of nature, memory and attention scores improved by about 20 percent, but not when viewing the urban pictures.
If looking at pictures can help your memory its clearly not so much where you are, as what you are looking at. I wonder what city views they were showing, and whether, say, views of Paris or Prague would cause the same reaction.
If what they are saying really boils down to that we need some beauty in our surroundings, they are a few thousand years behind the times.
Re:What a bunch of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more dangerous animals that would hunt and kill you in the middle of New York city than any wild area in the world.
Please try to go outside once in a while, and don't believe the scaremongering.
Parent
Re:What a bunch of BS (Score:4, Interesting)
There are more dangerous animals that would hunt and kill you in the middle of New York city than any wild area in the world.
Actually, NYC has less murder to population ratio than even most rural areas these days.
If you were talking about Detroit, Camdem, or Philadelhia...
Parent
Re:What a bunch of BS (Score:4, Informative)
Central park is where it is because they needed somewhere to graze cows so the city could have fresh milk. The same reason as almost every urban park in the world.
Got any evidence for that? This [wikipedia.org] seems to contradict that, and my understanding is that a lot of parks in the UK were created during the 19th century for the use of the growing urban population.
Also, especially given the smaller size of cities in the pre-mass transportation area, I doubt that having the cows smack in a designated area in the middle of the city as opposed to any other pocket of green land or keeping them on the outskirts was very likely.
Parent
Re:What a bunch of BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Wolves and pumas were the only two real predators to be concerned of unless you were a child
Wolves are generally pretty leery of human beings and go out of their way to avoid us. Pumas are more hit and miss -- some will avoid and some will try to ambush you. A buddy of mine had one jump out of cover at him and wound up having to shoot the poor thing.
I think you forgot bears though. They will generally avoid you but if you surprise one or stumble upon Mama and her cubs you'd better have brought a change of underwear and a really big gun......
Parent
Central Park (Score:5, Funny)
'It's not an accident that Central Park is in the middle of Manhattan,' says Berman.
For real? I thought they'd just forgotten to build shit there.
This is just nature-is-better-than-tech garbage (Score:4, Informative)
According to my MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science: Cities function as a cognitive artifact. Cognitive artifacts are external physical things that aid cognition.
Humans are not all the same, and what most humans were 10,000 years ago has little to do with our default abilities and preferences today. There is not even a linear progression, various climate and cultural filters have output humans with vastly different ideal environments.
The nature-would-do-us-best thesis is a feelgood mythology for people ill suited for the present technological norms most humans practice.
On a personal note have lived in Seattle, Akutan AK (island in Bering Sea), Kanab UT, and Antarctica. My mind did fine in all four places.
OS analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
being raised in a rural town, i suspect that I notice this effect much more strongly than urbanites. when i'm in the city, everything is fighting for my attention simultaneously, so i just tune everything out.
I wonder if something similar occurs when using a multitasking operating system.
in the old days, a personal computer would be set to do one thing and one thing only at any one time. now i have music running in the background, along with gimp and pidgin, while i try to post on Slashdot. I'm so distracted, this post took me nearly 45 minutes to type up, and i can almost guarantee I wont get a +5 insightful.
Re:Central Park isn't natural (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you left out roughly 70% of the Earth's surface there.
Parent