Errmm... I could have sworn that Clancy called it "Canary," not "The Smoking Word Processor." Either way, it's 20-year old prior art.

HRM's on kids in gym class are pointless. In order to be truly effective, they have to be programmed with data that only comes from performing metabolic tests on EACH kid, INDIVIDUALLY. No way the school's going to spend that kind of time on a bunch of rugrats. Likewise, unless they're having you buy some kind of super-mega-intelligent-swissarmyknife monitor, the most it's going to say is "Your heart's going 88 beats per minute." Maybe it'll spit out some sort of "You've burned 42 calories" along with that, but without that metabolic test, that calorie number's bunk. Hell, I've got a $400 watch+strap, and while it gives me lots of other info (calories burned, time spent in exercise zones, peak and average heart rate, average lap time, bluetooth comms for data transfer to my desktop, yaddayadda), it still wouldn't be able to tell me if my heart's about to go into tachycardia, fibrillation, or some other form of improper operation. Sorry, but apart from the "gee whiz" technology factor, there is nothing to be gained by doing this. Throw the kids a soccer ball and tell 'em to keep it on the blacktop.

The problem, though, is that in legalese, words don't mean the same thing that they do in common usage, so even reading the whole thing through, common street dweller Joe will think it means one thing, but a lawyer will argue it means something else. Since the ToS/EULA/Contract/Whatever was written by and for lawyers, they win every time, leaving Joe with the bill and about a hundred other street dwellers going "WTF???"

God forbid anybody write their ToS in regular, everyday, guy-on-the-street English (or the local language of choice). If it weren't for all the legalese written by lawyers, for lawyers, that only a third lawyer could understand, this sort of crap wouldn't happen. Instead, you end up with pages and pages of babble that most people don't understand, and therefore won't bother to read. IANAL, but couldn't that be grounds to have the whole thing thrown out on the notion of "How can I competently agree to something if I don't have a law degree to understand the blasted thing?"