The article seems to conflate content knowledge with being smart.

I would argue that raw analytical skills are much more important than content knowledge. Being able to regurgitate information is only marginally useful, and its most important value is that you're equipped with a framework and a lens through which to examine problems.

However, absent analytical capabilities, your ability to use your knowledge and past experiences to solve problems is severely limited.

Google makes people think they are knowledgeable, which is not necessarily the same as being "smart".

I've always said to my wife that I would like to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather. I certainly don't want to die screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.

The thing is, uni-directional apostrophes and double quotes aren't foot and inch marks --- the proper symbol for those are primes and double primes (which unfortunately only a few fonts have --- usually one has to get them out of a Pi font):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

I understand your position, and I appreciate the references to Diamond Age. But, my kids have school teachers fishing for information on my family. You know, the usual stuff about "do mommy and daddy do drugs?" Our government and retail and other services have their noses so far up my butt, I'm burping their boogers. The cops are roaming around with stingrays and x-rays, and some airports are still using rapey scans. And my kids are always running up to me reciting their need for the latest tacky plastic crap that teaches really stupid things--or some garbage about how an adult or other child is teaching them about eternal damnation or Sky Daddy and Zombie Boy. And all this despite the fact that we don't watch commercial TV in our house. But they get enough at school. Anyway, point is: in a climate like this, it's hard for me to call any reaction to this sort of "cloud-enabled" toy an over-reaction. Burroughs was a nut, indeed, but he was on the money on "the paranoid man is a man who knows a little about what's going on."

"Nonsensical" seems a bit strong. The article describes language's real "rules" as conventional, coming from usage, and labels more pedantic approaches to rules as stylistics. That seems to me to be pretty accurate. The description doesn't approach registers of speech, and we do need to consider those. But there are lots of "grammar rules" that are really just elements of style best ignored and which are often misused. Some examples: don't end a sentence with a preposition, don't split an infinitive, "passive voice." That last one is a hoot because most of the people who complain about its use can't define it accurately and fail to recognize that it is often valuable. It's also a good example of how there are better ways to approach this sort of thing than applying these particular rules. People commonly attack the "passive voice" because it confuses the actor. So it's much better to talk to people about making agency clear in a sentence, or about why one might be trying to obscure agency. Anyway, that's all my two cents. (I am an English professor, and I've taught for almost 25 years, but I am not a linguist nor a composition expert. So, I'm offering an informed but not quite expert opinion.)

I'm not sure I understand what your point is. My point was that the person to whom I responded created a false dichotomy, with life without parole being an option not addressed. I did not claim that "death", "life without parole", and "parole after X years" were the only options (my intention was not to create a false trichotomy, but merely to point out that there were options not considered by the OP).

False dichotomy. You are asserting that the option is to execute or parole after some maximum term. You are intentionally neglecting the option of life in prison without the chance of parole. Your argument is rendered almost entirely moot by such a sentencing option.

Agreed. I'd also love to see one at the service desk at a car dealership.

If you can get access to one or the other it's pretty straight-forward to bootstrap and make one: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/i...

First off, Canada != US, fellow American.

Second: people and businesses can limit the forms of payment they'll accept for practical reasons all the time. As in: no bills over a certain amount, or refusing payment in pennies. Coins CAN be legal tender, but no merchant or private party MUST accept a particular form of currency. Don't want to accept $1 bills, only $5 and $10? That's fine:

  http://www.snopes.com/business...

"Legal tender is the default method of payment assumed in contractual agreements involving debts and payments for goods or services unless otherwise specified."

Third: the currency is defaced. That is the whole point - it's potentially not legal currency if you've drawn all over it. If you interfere with security features in the bill and it becomes more risky to trust as valid (such as, counterfeit bills that meet other security features elsewhere on the bill)...then they are right to refuse it.

I'm kind of shocked Canada doesn't specifically outlaw defacement of the currency; the US sure does.

Since you refuse to clarify, and I, being relatively ignorant, must rely on the dictionary definitions, I don't understand the point you are trying to make:

From those definitions, it appears that it is possible to be a misanthrope and not be sociopathic, but that one of the defining characteristics of being a sociopath is some level of misanthropy (or, at least, misanthropic behaviour). Of course, rather than berating the original poster, perhaps you could attempt to bring clarity. On the other hand, perhaps you were trying to exemplify the misanthropy suggested in the original post, in which case I apologize for missing the joke.

They'll wind up using the same sort of protective techniques the superstitious used to use against witchcraft --- being careful not to shed any blood, skin, hair or nail clippings when engaged in their illicit activities.

I can see a scene in a science fiction movie (God forbid it really needs to happen) where the protagonist's best friend, despite the padded, blood-absorbing armor which they were when conducting sabotage against the state is injured, so that a single drop of blood drops to the ground --- while the protagonist looks on in horror and sadness. Then, the doomed buddy simply announces, "I've been blooded. Give me all the ammunition you can spare." and then goes off on a berserk, suicidal assault of the pursuing authorities.

Fortunately, you don't need showers. Bicycling != sweaty. And sweaty !=stinky.

People stink because they cover themselves in chemical perfumes (perfumes, soaps, shampoos, moisturizers, etc) that have limited 'life' before they start to decompose. People stink because they use fabric softener on their clothing (see above...also, fabric softeners are basically fat. Which goes rancid...) People stink because they toss their sweaty clothes into a hamper instead of airing them out.

I'm American. I ride a bike every day, in a city that goes from 0 degrees to 100+ degrees. I don't understand this obsession with sweat. If I'm going somewhere and can't show up sweaty, I slow down, or I get there a few minutes early and cool off/dry off just by...uh...standing around...

People seem to forget that biking is more efficient and thus for the same energy used walking, you can go several times faster, which means for the same energy you are less likely to get sweaty.

That's one thing I've always been mystified at --- when the English Channel tunnel was finished the machines were run a bit further and entombed --- why weren't they run up to the surface and put up for use on other projects?

The term you are missing is "Lifting body" --- it has control foils and is able to steer in the air using them (as opposed to using thrusters as capsules must).