It occurred to me that perhaps it would be best to answer my own questions up front to get reactions, as opposed to just leaving them here. So here's my take on Kuhn.
1) What did you take the term "paradigm" to mean?
The two things that defined a paradigm most definitively (Kuhn does seem to be terribly vague on this point, IMO) were the problem-solving solutions taught in the process of teaching new scientists, and the particular historical perspective adopted for pedagogical means. A paradigm can more clearly identified by these two criteria than by simply referencing "the world-view which the scientific community shares" (though that certainly has it's place and deserves to be discussed).
I think this is the best approach because science is learned, mostly, by solving problems. The ideas, on the face, aren't the most complex and difficult things to get at with respect to other subjects, IMO. They aren't meant to be. The complexity comes in the application of these ideas to modeling problems or finding solutions to problems. This helps later in the generation of hypothesis and in approaching problems/puzzles/questions within the lab (as you do find problems), as you have a basic rule-of-thumb by which to start finding a solution. As such, a new paradigm, if exists, will teach problems differently at some
level. This doesn't occur at every level, as can be witnessed by the still-in-use problem solving techniques of Newtonian mechanics. They're still-in-use because they still work for their set of situations, and they're a hell of a lot easier to use than the problem solving techniques used to model other situations. (Further, relativity is pretty elegant in that it reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the conditions Newtonian mechanics was generated to model. More on this later in "incommensurability", though)
The historicism of the scientific pedagogy is another central point to Kuhn that serves as a historical looking-back-upon for scientific revolutions. Those mentioned in the history most often are those who revolutionize. There are other figures as well, mentioned for this or that law/hypothesis/interpretation (as Kuhn would put it, "normal science", albeit significant contributions to normal science none-the-less), but the history of blindingly brilliant individuals who broke the conservatism inherent to the scientific process is a main sticking point in demarcating paradigms as these individuals, through history, come to be less accurate descriptions of their biography and more heroic figures enshrined in the values and assumptions that the scientific community should adopt. The story is often told in the frame of "He observed, couldn't explain, postulated, proposed experiment, and since then..." etc, etc. In short, the story follows the general rule-of-thumb for scientific progress currently being taught. I know a handful of these stories myself, but I haven't checked to see if they're true. Further, I don't care if they're true. They're useful to understanding science.
I dislike "world-view", not because it doesn't seem to encapsulate what a paradigm is, according to Kuhn, but rather because it lacks anything resembling a decent empirical point of demarcation in which we can identify paradigms.
2) Did you read his work as prescriptive, or descriptive?
Mostly descriptive, for myself. There are some points (such as the scientific communities need to rely upon conservative values in order to progress at all, etc) that are prescriptive, but I think Kuhn was more attempting to explain why paradigms change and challenge the assumption that science = progress at all times.
3) How did you react to the concept of incommensurability?
I'm still thinking on this one, myself. In some sense, such as the point Kuhn makes between Einstein's concepts of matter and Newton's concepts of matter, I can see as somewhat incommensurable. But, simultaneously, this might be too metaphysical to be counted as incommensurable -- even under the prescriptions of Kuhn, scientists within the paradigm that had a positive prediction in solving an outstanding puzzle whilst attempting to not destroy all puzzles so far solved in that solution. That doesn't indicate that new paradigms are incommensurable to each other. Primary point that I noticed he left out: The periodic table of the elements has survived several models of the atom. Also, the ideal gas law is intentionally built on "falsity" and the Newtonian paradigm, yet it is still in wide use today. So, in part, I could see things being incommensurable, but there are some obvious arguments I don't think Kuhn addresses very well.
4) How did you react to SSR?
I thought it was well thought out and presented a decent argument for a novel position. I was initially turned-off to Kuhn due to the nature in which it was presented to me by others, but reading it myself I don't think those others had the right of it. In fact, after reading it, I sort of thought it was so specialized that I still wonder why it's so widely read. This isn't to say that it's bad, mind, but usually books on the sociology and philosophy of an academic discipline in conjunction with a hypothesis about their internal changes just doesn't attract this much interest.
What did you take the overall thesis of the book to mean?
I do agree with those that think Kuhn divorced truth from science. However, I think Kuhn totally rejected the idea of truth in the first place. So, whilst against scientific realism, his particular rejection of it has been less emphasized than that rejection itself by those who previously introduced me to Kuhn. I, myself, am a scientific realist. But because of Kuhn I'm more aware of the difficulties on my position, and for that appreciate the book.