And eventually destroy Humanity and the Human Race.

Here's the major flaws in this argument:
1. The Internet is necessary. Sure there's people who "get along" without it, but there are people who pride themselves on getting along without most modern conveniences, but they have also accepted that they're no longer a part of Society (and they like it that way). The Internet is how things get done in our modern life. News, education, paying bills - all aspects of life have been tailored to the Internet. Studies have shown that children who have regular access to the Internet do better in school. The Internet has opened up a whole new method of allowing people who once found it difficult to stay in contact with loved ones to easily keep in touch. The Internet is a huge element of the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and other movements of Social Change.
2. The Cell phone is necessary, especially in emergency situations. Slip on ice and find yourself and your car in a gorge? Call for help. Taking a stroll in your neighborhood and see something suspicious? Call it in right there. Find your town has been decimated by a natural disaster and the phone lines are down? Use your cell to call for help or let loved ones know you're okay.
3. The car is no longer a luxury item. Once again, Society has adapted to the car and it's nearly impossible to get anything done (at least outside a major metropolitan area) without the use of a vehicle. And while I have many friends who live in the city and have a perfectly fine time without the use of an automobile, at least two or three times a month they rent a Zipcar (or the equivalent) to get things done like grocery shopping or visiting family outside the city.
4. I take issue with the idea that kids get jobs after school because they don't have "dependable parents". My parents were VERY dependable, but they wanted me to work to teach me things like interpersonal skills and responsibility. My children will get jobs when they're old enough for the very same reason. And there was a time when minimum-wage jobs were the sole domain of the under-18 crowd. Now they've been forced out by other groups who, for whatever reason, have been forced to take said jobs.
5. A guaranteed income supplement is a handout. And given the state of things in Washington right now, how guaranteed will it be if the government shuts down?
6. The problem with upping the minimum wage is that each state handles their own MW, so if one raises their MW but the surrounding states don't, then businesses start to move out of the state with the higher MW. How do I know? Because it's happening here in Illinois and every day we read or hear about a business who's moving to Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan or Missouri because the MW is lower in those states. You can cry and beat your fists and say, "Well, those companies don't care about the worker!", but the fact is that there's no companies coming IN to offset the ones going out, so then it must be ALL companies who don't care then, right?
But, I agree with your first sentence: let's set a minimum basic level of acceptable living and then move from there. The problem is that, you truly will start to have class warfare because there will be some areas that have people high above that level, some well above that level, some just above that level, some right at that level and then some below that level. And then people will start pointing fingers and saying, "Look at those people in the area high above the level! They're the one's responsible for this!"

Why does everything that has traditionally been done a certain way (and successfully) have to automatically be subject to the whims of those who want to do it another way, "just to see what would happen"? The Doctor has traditionally been Male. And people have been just fine with that. What are the motivations to make The Doctor female? There are none, save for one: because we live in an age where certain types of people cannot just let something be what it is or let those who enjoy something just enjoy it as they like it.
I, for one, am against making The Doctor a woman if just for the reason that it won't stop there. Already I heard on BBC radio someone suggesting that The Doctor could be a Transgendered Lesbian if they wanted. And that's the problem: I don't want The Doctor's sexuality to become part of the show. If you make The Doctor a woman, then Doctor Who will have reached it's "Moonlighting" moment. And then every group will want their own version of The Doctor and the show will be less about the adventures of the Last Galifreyan and all about, "Oooo, will we have an Asian Female this time around? What about an African Homosexual?"
Leave The Doctor's gender alone and concentrate on writing great stories.
Besides, "Madman with a box" sounds a lot better than "Crazy lady with a box".

Because it couldn't be the need to tailor the school day to fit Mom and Dad's work schedules -
Or the mountains of un-necessary homework that the kids (even in grade school) get -
Or the constant barrage from teachers and coaches that the kids need to have at least one if not two extra curricular activities -
Or the insane concept that kids have to attend a minimum of seven classes every day -

Research has shown that the average child between the ages of 10 and 20 require more sleep than previously thought to accommodate for their physical and mental changes. But instead of tailoring the school day to account for that, we'll blame laptops, smartphones, tablets and console gaming.

Here's some ideas:
1. Just like in college, have some classes offered MWF and some offered TR. That way, there's more time in the day for a kid to work on homework, and find their teacher if they have a question.
2. Let's put more money towards buses, and allow kids to go to school from 9 am to 4 pm, instead of forcing them to get up at 5am to get ready for school.
3. How about some teachers (I'm looking at you, math teachers) stick with assigning homework that teaches the basics and offers the more advanced concepts as extra credit. If I'm new to Calculus, it's better that you make sure I understand the basics of Calculus before "challenging" me with advanced topics before I'm ready.
4. With less classes per day, extracurricular activities could be pursued during the school day, rather than forcing kids to do them after school and delaying when they can get to their homework.

The problem isn't the distractions, it's the organization of the school day itself.

I have to comment on this line from the article, "...Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars..."
Rational compared to what? What exactly does a Segway do better than any current form of transportation out there?
Can it replace the bicycle? No, since the Segway can run out of power where it cannot be recharged. Plus the bicycle has had over 100 years of innovation to make it work with the rider. I've ridden a Segway, it's not as fantastic a ride as a bicycle.
Can it replace the automobile? Not if you need to go over 5 mph (for beginners). Or uphill. Or more than 25 miles. Or if it rains. Or if you have to go grocery shopping. In terms of city driving, the scooter is a much more sensible vehicle.
The Segway "failed" because it's a niche device. It was a device created without a market, and it had to manufacture its own. It's perfect for zipping around a campus, but not much else. And let's face it, can you image a city full of people riding these things? Accidents galore, without the benefit of safety harnesses and crumple zones.
And Google Glass isn't going to "fail" because you might look like a dork (need I mention current fashions that do the same thing yet a good portion of the population still loves them?), it's going to "fail" because of all the privacy issues associated with the product.

Because of laptops, tablets and smartphones (unless we're counting laptops as PCs, which I can understand).
Most users don't need everything that a PC offers, especially the bloatware pre-installed from companies such as Sony, Lenovo, HP or Dell. Most users require very little from their computing device: e-mail, social media and web browsing. And smartphones and tablets provide all those, in a compact form-factor, along with texting/messaging.
This isn't a huge mystery. The market is shifting to sleeker, more task-focused computing. The PC is going to be relegated to those who require it, and the tablet and smartphone are taking over the task of more general computing.

This is a tactic that's not just limited to interviews for tech positions, this is becoming a scourge amongst all service-based positions. My wife has twice been the victim of this, and she works in marketing/advertising. What happens is the interviewer says, "Here's a scenario, create a quick campaign slogan or copy to address the needs of the client," under the guise of "getting a feel for your skillset". So the candidate performs the work and then either doesn't get the job or gets a second "interview" in which they're asked to perform the same task, only this time with a bit more detail. Recruiters are well aware of this process and are asking their clients to notify them immediately when they're being asked to "provide examples". Your resume and experience (and in the case of the marketing people, their "book" of previous work), combined with more general job-specific questions should be enough to give a potential employer a good idea of your skills. The interview isn't actually about getting to know what you can do, it's more about gauging how you'll fit in with the corporate environment and the personalities on the team you'll be joining.

And make no mistake, having an interview candidate "solve" your issues for you isn't about the existing team being inept, it's purely a method of obtaining free labor.

This romantic notion of "...sometimes take chances on things we wouldn't otherwise try..." when it comes to dating is bullshit. When trying a new restaurant, sure it works just fine, but that's also because you know that, at most, you'll have one bad meal. But relationships are not restaurants, and regardless of what Ludlow has to say, compatibility is key.

The reason for the high divorce rate isn't Feminism or a casual attitude toward Marriage, it's the concept that "Opposites Attract" should be the norm. Opposites Attract doesn't work. It's fun for a month or two, but then the changes start. "I love him, but I wish he'd do..." or "I love her, but I wish she'd stop..." are the death knells of relationships. People need to learn that if someone you're dating isn't compatible with you, don't try to change them, simply end the relationship. If Tommy doesn't ring Sally's bell, then Sally doesn't have to feel she needs to stay with him while they're dating. The dumbest thing I've ever heard is, "Oh, I know that makes me crazy, but that will all change once we get married."

What's at the heart of the matter is that young people don't know who they are, nor take the time to learn. There's so much pressure to get married and pop out kids that people in their twenties don't take the time to learn about who they are and what makes them tick. So when it comes to picking a mate, they don't know what they're looking for. Once someone knows themselves, then they can seriously start looking for someone with whom they'd like to spend the rest of their lives, and THAT'S when sites like eHarmony and Match.com show their true strength.

In the words of RuPaul, "If you don't love yourself, how in the hell you gonna love somebody else?"

While I agree that this is more about the shooter than the tools used to carry out this heinous act, and that the idea of someone with mental issue being allowed to legally possess a firearm is ludicrous, no one seems to be focused on the two things that stand in the way of passing laws to prevent the mentally ill from legally owning a gun: self-awareness and privacy.
1. The crazy people don't "know" they're crazy. Adam was getting treatment for a disorder, but only because someone recognized his need for treatment and got it for him when he was a minor. But what about when he gets older? Has anyone ever had the pleasure of knowing someone with a mental illness? In my experience, about 30% (roughly) are self-aware enough to admit they have a problem and seek treatment. The other 70% don't admit they have a disorder and won't seek treatment for various reasons, but mostly because they don't want to be labeled as "crazy" or "mentally ill" (there's a whole other argument about how we as a Society are partially to blame for that, but it's beyond the scope of the discussion here). So if they don't seek treatment, who will be able to classify them properly?

2. Violating one's right to privacy. If a doctor cannot tell the whole world that someone has VD or HIV, what makes you think that a therapist will be able to release information about their patients' mental health? Even if someone seeks treatment, there's a litany of legal precedent to keep their treatment a secret, even from agencies who would be regulating the sale of arms. The only way a law which restricts the sale of firearms to the mentally ill would work is if there were a database of who's diagnosed as mentally ill, and I can pretty much guarantee that that's not going to happen. At the very least, it would open the door to keeping a database of other people who would be considered "threats" to Society, which is something I know no sane person would advocate.

Do we as a Society need to do a better job of treating the mentally ill, both in terms of facilities and general attitudes? Of course. But this idea of having a way of identifying the mentally ill for purposes of restricting their ability to legally own a firearm is simply not practical.

Plus, even if it did pass, there's still a huge black market for firearms of any type, and THOSE people don't care if you're mentally ill or not, so long as you have the cash.

I understand most of the arguments against the dollar bill (and penny, nickle, etc.), but I don't believe this has been completely thought through.
First, 4 billion over 30 years? Right now, on the scale our World operates, 4 billion really isn't a whole lot to worry about (considering our deficit is in the Trillions). Take that further to $140+ million per year and it's tantamount to an individual who makes $150,000 annually saving $1.40 a year (assuming there's a direct comparison between the US's $15 trillion GDP and the $150,000 annual salary).
Then there's the question about with what we'd replace the paper money. Many here have suggested using coins, but, for me, $20 in paper money is a lot more convenient than twenty large coins in my pocket. Plus, even though it was suggested as a joke at the beginning of this thread, there are professions in which smaller denoms are heavily used, and I can't imagine a stripper or bartender wanting to head home with an extra 20 pounds of metal in her purse.
As far as the vending machines go, there's a perfect solution for that - start accepting debit cards or NFC and stop taking any sort of currency altogether. Of course, they may complain about the cost of having to service the machines because of the bills getting stuck, but, roughly translated, what they're actually saying is, "If we didn't have to accept dollar bills, we could let go of most of our service technicians." They may be annoying, but dollar bills clearly maintain someone's job security.
So while I see all the arguments against the dollar bill, just like with may "great ideas", no one has mentioned the downsides to eliminating it.
And as far as the penny goes, I don't know how factual it is, but there's an episode of "The West Wing" that talks about one reason we'll never ditch the penny - unless you move Lincoln's face to another coin, Illinois (and Kentucky for that matter) will always lobby against eliminating the penny.