Actor 1 "Hey guys, this is my opinion"
Actor 2 "Here's a brief summary of why you are wrong."
Actor 1 "I can't take rejection. You have no life"
Actor 3 *insert actual comment of rejection*
*new topic* *repeat*

This is a well known psychological fact, sans the exact dollar value. In reality, the dollar amount correlates as a percentage greater than the dollar value an individual needs in order to cover basic living expenses. Not a link to the "exact" relation, but proof that this article in general is nothing new or profound. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/200806/money-and-happiness

Excellent idea, I can see this taking off in the near future for sure.

That said, this largely seems like a cop out for writing appropriately. The only type of discussion that benefits from a specific punctuation mark is that of which is brief to begin with, a la Facebook and Twitter posts. Any continuous communication past a couple of sentences render this punctuation unnecessary, as the frame of the sentence gives the reader clues as to the author's intent.

Additionally, even sarcasm in the short, burst style communication of social websites can be made apparent by appropriate word choice with a touch of redundancy. But maybe it is too much to ask for MySpace users and co. to think about what they're writing.

Emergency protocol at the LHC: blast it with charge and angular momentum.

I have to point out that if you could not refute the prior argument of the developers loosing no money, then your following argument of fairness of those who do pay adds nothing more. If you agree that pirating technically does not harm a developer, then the same applies to those who do purchase the software. So your argument is internally flawed.

If an action containing violence is your standard for a justified ban, then you're correct. But as my argument only pertained to a question of fact, and your argument is one of policy, I hardly see how it applies or could be interpreted as being "on topic". :D

Videogames are not an exception, nor are they exceptional to the fact.

9th Amendment to the Constitution reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," meaning that the Bill of Rights is obviously incomplete and that other unalienable rights exist. The right to retain one's hearing would likely fall under this.

I am sorry if I failed to clarify myself. What I was hoping is that you would cite your sources for which you base your conclusions, so that I may do further research on my own, spring boarding from where you already seem to have done much research in.

Thank you. Could you also post sources?

It is unfortunate that you put so much effort in this post, only to have as much credibility as Nostradamus. Oddly enough I do not think 100 million stupid and obese self-entitled citizens is a valid statistic.

Voice alerts and vibrations are very distilled and exact, so responsiveness should be just as good if not better. And the blind do not have the disadvantage of being distracted by something they see.

I tend to fall into the "if the car can sense it, why not let it drive itself?" boat here though. Unfortunately, unless it can also read signs, it is still dependent on GPS to let the driver know where they are at, and at that point there is no purpose for human input aside from the destination.

Every advanced species on earth have survived as long as crocodiles. It has just taken a long time to evolve past their basic design of being the biggest creature with the largest bite, which is genius when you think about it.