I have yet to see any scientific study regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia vs traditional encyclopedias.

Clean = byproducts are non-toxic to most or all local life forms
Sustainable = responsible usage will not deplete available resources for a long time
Renewable = resource can be essentially infinite with responsible use
Green = Feelgood scam. Hide your wallet. Not in this case, but as a rule.

The entire article has a ham-handed apologist overtone, or at least the strong odor of polemophilia.

So beautiful.

I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, but given how much people pay for these as collectables, this may be the most idiotic idea ever.

20 years as well. Some of the questions they left out (are you armed to the teeth?) were interesting. BTW where I live, moss grows on every side of the tree, and that question is bunk. I do have a compass on my watch strap, and I carry a Foretrex 401 around with me because....uh... I don't know why.

I've read the Silmarillon two or three times, and every time the appendix of names had to be perma-bookmarked. Beren and Lúthien make the book worth the sloggy bits.

Well that was anticlimactic. Still, better than actually eating Velveeta.

I just can't get inspired by Google anything anymore. They've irritated me to no end this year.

Also, methinks that what people actually googled most was conspicuously absent, but it's undoubtedly NSFN.

This is one of those forts that looks so awesome and is in a cool spot but is totally useless against any foe with any sort of logistic supply. In the end you'll just die eating your own foot.

A well-played poke at British linguistic sensibilities.

1. There is no plot. This is improv.