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.

Population of China is about 1.3 billion. That's some serious software piracy...

That brings up an important question: is it better to be dead or to live out a normal lifespan doing nothing but playing Angry Birds? I'm leaning toward the former.

I think a better translation is: The game offers you more tools for solving problems as it gets harder. Still not earth-shattering, since many games do this, but you oversimplified.

You've shared a nice anecdote, but I have one too. My 2 year old daughter watches zero TV and is doing pretty well. She speaks in full sentences ("daddy, come join us for breakfast"), counts to 13, knows her ABCs, can identify almost every animal at the zoo... whenever we're out in public people comment on how articulate she is.

I'm not claiming she's exceptional or that her progress has anything to do with our avoidance of television. I think it's probably more about personal attention from her parents and caregivers, lots of time reading with her parents, and her own particular path of development. She's not missing out by avoiding kids' programming, and she is definitely being exposed to less advertising.

The whole point of the recommendations is that an hour of quality time with an adult is vastly superior to an hour of television in terms of learning and cognitive development. That's the conclusion most researchers have come to over the years. Sure, limited time watching TV probably doesn't hurt. Research has show that it doesn't benefit most children, and that large amounts of television watching are probably harmful.

Sorry, the Bush tax cuts are not a good example of the idea that tax cuts supposedly lead to greater revenues.

First, adjusted for inflation (2005 dollars), revenues were about $2.3 trillion in 2000 and $2.4 trillion in 2007. That's only 5% growth, less than 1% annually. If we hadn't cut taxes, revenues would have grown much more.

Second, most economists don't credit the Bush tax cuts with more than a small part of the growth in GDP. There's a lot more going on in the economy than tax rates. The total revenues collected over that time period would have been much greater without the tax cuts. And our national debt would be trillions of dollars less.

Finally, why stop in 2007? That's an arbitrary number that you picked because it fit your argument best. Inflation-adjusted tax revenues in 2009 were BELOW levels in every year since 1997. 2010 was only slightly better.

I'm all for reducing budget deficits, and for tax policy reform. Almost everyone should be paying higher taxes right now.

Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The one ignorant of reality seems to be you.

Polluters, in general, are NOT the ones encouraging most environmental regulations. Look at Koch Industries, or other companies that are major direct polluters - they're waging an all-out campaign against regulation of CO2 and other pollutants. Look at campaign contributions. The people getting the most money from major polluters are not the ones proposing new, strict environmental regulation. Look at the way oil companies are eagerly seizing on oil prices as a reason to get Obama to relax restrictions on drilling.

As most people who actually study these things know, the vast increase in income disparity is probably due to number of trends:

- economic globalization, which drives down wages for workers
- the impotence of labor unions
- improved technology regarding supply chains, IT, etc. that enabled large companies to operate more efficiently than before
- huge income tax cuts for the rich, from 70%+ decades prior to Reagan to about half that today, which makes large salaries more effective than they were in the past
- changing corporate culture
- yes, corporate influence on government probably has an impact, but it's hardly the most significant factor

Not all of those fit with your libertarian ideology, though.

You aren't sane, you are ignorant. Climate is a complex system and it's difficult to predict on a local level exactly how greenhouse gas emissions will affect it. It will likely get warmer in most places, most of the time, but that doesn't mean there might not be geographic and seasonal variations. Overall, however, the warming trend is clear and rapid. The increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere is clear and rapid. The greenhouse effect is a well-theorized and empirically-supported mechanism. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that great ice sheets are melting. The details about the effect on individual countries at particular times can't be predicted as easily, but that doesn't invalidate the whole theory. Furthermore, if you are judging climate change theory by what you read in the popular media, you are clearly not doing science either.

What's your source for there not being enough land for windmills? Other people disagree.

The obvious choice is electricity, preferably powered by renewable resources (wind, solar, waves). My hope is that either fuel cell or battery technology will be up to the challenge.

Absolutely - this needs to be an issue in the 2012 elections so that the United States finally starts to shift course before it is too late.