Allow me to introduce these concepts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

while (source[i] != '\0')
{
        dest[i] = source[i];
        i++;
    }

So one error in that code would be 1 defect per five lines or so.

Here's all the code you need, what a better programmer would write:
while (*dest++ = *src++);

Your "better code" is actually not equivalent (the first loop doesn't copy the nul terminator). Even if it was equivalent, I don't think I would necessarily call it "better". This particular piece happens to be fairly idiomatic and many would understand it, but cramming as much semantics in one line as possible is usually not a good idea. I agree that in general less code is better for equivalent behavior, but usually that means better factoring, not putting more code in one line.

> something that predated the definition of units in the metric
> system in physical units by almost 200 years.
That definition depends on gravity at the point of measure (I think. I'm not sure what's "a pendulum at 38 degrees"). How is it more a "defined in physical units" than 1/10,000,000 the distance from the equator to the North pole (original definition of the meter), of the mass of a given volume of water (original definition of the kilogram)?

Actually, by definition, *all* NP-complete problems fall into this category (unless P = NP)

Last I heard, jets were going as fast as possible (despite the large increase in fuel consumption from near top speed to top speed) because of the savings in staff costs. So, fuel savings wouldn't necessarily hep that much.

For everyone that loses money, some one else would gain it.
The market is not a zero-sum game.

Well, if you can add a field at run-time then by definition you can't check its presence at compile-time.

More importantly, it is runtime-resolved.
I personally would consider this a disadvantage.
I like my type-checking at compile-time thank you.

Other than the "convenience" of being able to get at your email, a crutch for a stunted sense of direction, and a safety net for poor before-hand planning
These are all excellent reasons for using a smartphone (and you don't need a stunted sense of direction to find maps useful). Anything after that is bonus.

> besides intercourse
What makes this one more logical than any other, especially since you claim that having children is illogical? I'm curious.
Also, you seem to assume that being logical means maximizing productivity. Personally, my goal in life is not to be the most productive. Entertainment is actually closer to it.

But don't think that Lisp is always the right language for scripting your text editor (dodges blow from Emacs partisan).
Lisp is functional, but not statically typed. Loses most of the benefit IMO.

12C -> 4He + 4He + 4He is exothermic. (The reverse reaction is an energy source for stars under some circumstances.)
You meant endothermic then.

You mean like a solar sail?

information theory
You probably mean "cryptography". Information theory is related but different.
Anyway, cryptography makes a distinction between "obscure" and "secret". The idea is that good cryptography requires a secret. If something is in your possession (like a program on your disk), it's not secret to you (exception could be made for some secure chips that are designed specifically so that you can't read their secret).

How is calculating complexity "trivia"? Were the algorithms only described by name?