You conveniently fail to do any math or cite any sources, because you are wrong. I'm not advocating gun control, but it's a more complex issue than you want to seem to admit.

I won't rehash all the posts here, but both Slashdot and Reddit have done a thorough job critiquing this project. My question for you is, do you honestly believe this is possible, or are you just planning to milk it for "sponsorships" and publicity as long as possible?

Good point, but try reading his comment in the context of the conversation. I'm not condemning charity, but the implication behind his comment is that somehow socialism is unjust because it is supported by the threat of force.

Huh? I've tried to cut corners sometimes and bought low-end hardware, and when/if it failed I sent it back. You don't seem to get that they aren't the manufacturer - no matter where you buy a given item from it will most likely have the same failure rate. You've got the same odds with Amazon or anywhere else. If you have evidence otherwise, show me.

He's looking at outcomes. Planned Parenthood delivers health care; Susan J Komen delivers "awareness" and a declining percentage of money actually devoted to research ( 20% of expenditures in 2009 ).

Wow, what a thought-free bit of propaganda.

Socialism is a way of distributing goods and services, maintained by the rule of law. Capitalism is a way of distributing goods and services, maintained by the rule of law. Break the rules of either, and you will (in theory) end up in jail.

In practice, people cheat, and sometimes they get away with it.

Out of their millions of customers, one had a bad experience. You could find the same with any company. I've returned numerous products to NewEgg without a problem, and they typically have excellent prices and top-quality service. This may be a sign of things to come, but it's a little bit of an overreaction to write them off so quickly.

First, this was a tiny minority of students and possibly a handful of faculty. You are claiming that ALL of Mexican American studies was racist because a few vocal students were. Sounds kind of racist...

The reason they ended Mexican American studies is because of a state law and state threats. Not sure where you are getting your facts.

The top management of TUSD has mostly been replaced since 2009. The reason for school closures is plunging enrollment, much of which is due to SB1070 and the economic downturn.

I'm not saying TUSD is perfect, but they're not quite the entity you're claiming they are.

Huh? You are completely wrong. Maybe you are trolling and this is meant to be "meta", but here are the actual facts.

It was a popular Tucson program that was ruined by Republican state lawmakers from outside Tucson. There was a state law passed that specifically targeted Mexican-American studies at TUSD. You can read more here. There were 1400 kids in Mexican American studies in Tucson before the state started targeting it. The state threatened to withhold 10% of TUSD's budget - millions of dollars for a cash-strapped school district - unless they cancelled Mexican American studies. TUSD appealed the decision and lost a court case, and only then voted to end the program.

An audit the state commissioned found that the program was successful and not illegal, but the Republicans ignored their own audit and insisted the program was illegal.

People are claiming that bodog.com was a Canadian site, but I'm confused. Here's a cache of the page from April 2011.

Less than a year ago the website said "Bodog Gaming is operated in the United States under License by Morris Mohawk Gaming Group." Could this be why the domain name was seized? It would see to fall inside US jurisdiction in that case.

Which of my facts were incorrect?

That document you linked to is from 2004. From your report, it says Shell is "currently" testing the technology. Where's the oil shale production you speak of?

Who is extracting it right now at $45 or $60 in the United States?

No one is doing large-scale extraction right now in any of the formations in this country, so how can there be a connection yet?

The fact that this was modded insightful shows just how little Slashdotters know about this issue.

The oil boom the United States is experiencing will be short-lived.

Your facts are basically wrong. You make it sound like we'll obtain even close to 1.5 trillion barrels of oil from fracking, but that's just not true. There's two different kinds of "shale oil." The first is the kind that is actually small pockets of oil trapped in shale. That's the kind being recovered in the Bakken formation. You can access that oil with fracking and horizontal drilling, but the amount of economically viable oil we'll get from fracking in the United States is more like 20-50 billion barrels or less.

The 1.5 trillion figure you are quoting is probably including oil shale which is not oil. It's a type of rock that requires extensive processing (i.e., high temperatures for long periods of time) to create liquid oil. Turning it into usable oil is highly energy intensive, potentially incredibly environmentally destructive, and most importantly, essentially no one is doing it. People have been working on this process for 40 years and they still can't make it work economically. Ignoring the environmental problems, it would probably take more energy to produce on average than it would provide.

Sorry, but you haven't undercut the concept of animal rights.

First, that's not an argument that animals do not have rights. It is an argument that animals and humans do not have the same rights, which is a pretty trivial point to make. Very few people say that animals have the same rights as humans. I believe animals have the right not be tortured or killed for entertainment. That doesn't mean they have the unconditional right to live, or that they can vote, or own property.

Second, that is a simplistic way to look at rights in general. You say that we would have to "prevent pigeons from being killed by predators" if we believe in animal rights. That implies that there are no circumstances where rights can be superseded. You say "a human has (the) right to live" yet we routinely kill people in war or as punishment for crimes. Millions of people a year die as a result of environmental contamination. If you believe that we have the right to live, why do we allow that to happen? Those people are deprived of their lives for (supposedly) the common good, and also because we have to protect the rights of others. Similarly, the pigeon needs to die so the hawk can live. Both species have the right to continue their existence within a certain framework.

I think this is over-complicating things frankly. More tools unlocked required as you proceed through harder levels of the game is as standard as it gets.

I never meant to imply that it was new, or to defend the article. I meant to differentiate the approach Angry Birds took from a game like Tetris, or solitaire where you DON'T gain access to any additional tools.

Also, I agree that there is an element of chance and network effects in the way it became so popular. It does have a couple other things that you missed though:

- the physics of the game are appealing - watching the little objects slowly tip over, for example - and
- the high-quality animations make the tiny screen seem more lush and engaging than it would if things were more static

Once again, neither of these things is new to gaming, but it was done quite well for a mobile game at the time it came out.