That hard science shit is HARD.

But would they be better served (in a business sense) by hiring someone to write better science coverage?

They don't post enough science pieces to make it worthwhile, I would a$$ume.

since apparently I based a lot of my initial assumptions based on home country.

Okay, so I'll stop being facetious and explain how your comment was stupid:

I was demonstrating my worthiness as a male mate by acting 'like a man' and punching an idiot.

Which is the wrong side?

*Socks you in the face*

There are other people out there like that.

Because in depth scientific reportage (or even second-hand science reportage) is not exciting enough to be clickable for most of the users.

Have you seen Magic on TV? He's only better than Shaq in that he talks less.

They should bring in Zach Lowe.

Incisive.

That would be good, but c'mon, the obvious solution is just to bring back Webber.

Y'know what? Good. The Wilbon aspect stinks, but Magic is, even after all these years, one of the worst people to hear talk about basketball that is occurring.

Totally agreed.

Accomplishing goals is often seen as being an asshole.

Other than the fact that it has the words "Ayn Rand" on it, I don't get the problem?

Eh, I think satire can be an acceptable reason for something so ugly, but it has to be, y'know, satirical in intent, rather than humorous.

While the number's clearly wrong (for the reasons people have mentioned here), there are a number of people (mostly older) who still buy porn magazines. Not to mention the people who rent or buy porn dvds.