Perhaps the objection is not so much with the label but with the long standing political strategy that informs the labeling. The right-wing strategy concerning academics has been to cast them as impractical and politically motivated lefties ( in contrast to practical, apolitical business leaders? ), and to substantially defund leaving research budgets, direction, and research results in the hands of business. So it is rather important to ask "why the academic vs business labelling here" when you see it.

And, cypherpunks, give me a break. Anyone who has been "downsized" or seen their company go from successful to chapter 11 overnight can tell you that CEOs spout as much gibberish when they cut you loose as you'd find anywhere. And on the flip side, telling a graduate student or an untenured faculty member that they no longer have a future at an institution is every bit as painful as firing someone.
In fact it is probably worse because you are not only severing someone from her job, you are also messing with her passion.

Hanna, imagine being in a practical, results-oriented meeting in business or politics, having to make difficult compromises, allocate budgets, maybe hire or fire people.

Then someone speaks up and says, "A well-constructed metaphor can stretch the mind, but only when both the author and the reader understand the tension between metaphor and the reference - it's that tension that creates the opportunity for insight, not the substitution."

Please. This kind of language has no place outside of the ivory tower of academia. Only they have the luxury to waste their time on abstract issues like this. I've hired people and I've fired people. If I bring some guy in and tell him he's being layed off, and he starts crying, and then I start talking to him about the nature of metaphor, he'd feel like punching me in the nose. And he'd be right to do so.

There's nothing wrong with academics; they make a contribution to the world. But it's awfully hypocritical for David Reed to get upset about being labeled this way when his actions just prove the case. If the shoe fits, wear it, David, and wear it with pride. But don't start whining when someone calls you an academic, not if you want to fill your time with empty philosophical musings.

And don't get me started on "cognitive radio", which (to the extent it means anything) seems to be mostly a new spin on the old idea of directional antennas. But those don't work so well for mobile applications, which seem to be where all the interest lies, because the physical orientation of the antenna is constantly changing. I'm not saying this can't be solved eventually by technology, but it's not going to be easy. And no one should be under the impression that today's WiFi cards are using smart antennas, as the USA Today article suggests:

"Users of unlicensed bands don't pay for airwaves. Instead, they share them with other services, avoiding interference by operating at low power and using smart antennas that can pluck out relevant signals and ignore all others."

You know, cypherpunks, if the academics are the only people we expect to think about language and cognition in the abstract like this... maybe it just says bad things about our businessmen and politicians. :p

Reed gets all bent out of shape because USA Today used the word "academics" once. But read this excerpt from his article:

"Metaphor has replaced the need for a thoughtful population. Metaphor's become a crutch. A well-constructed metaphor can stretch the mind, but only when both the author and the reader understand the tension between metaphor and the reference - it's that tension that creates the opportunity for insight, not the substitution."

The whole second half of his article is about the nature of metaphor! It's hard to imagine a more abstract and academic approach to take in discussing telecommunication issues. Reed sounds like an academic through and through.