How about medical applications? 1mm^3 is actually small enough to be put in a pill and go through your digestive system. Cover it in some glass coating to avoid acid from melting it, swallow a bunch over a number of time intervals, have sensors on the surface that measure whatever can be measured and you may have some interesting results. It is still too big to be injected into your blood stream, need to shrink it another 10-100 times to do that I guess, but it is an interesting way to develop computing by combining it further with the medical field. You can actually embed 1mm^3 computers into your bones and other tissue and not even feel them probably, while they are sending their data to your phone and to your physician.

If only there were a two-wheeled vehicle where your legs moved. They could even be used to *power* the device.

Nobody can say anything definitive becaus because we do not have all the facts yet. It is suspicious when congress asks for all the correspondents over benghazi and hers were missing just to find out she used an outside server and email and decided to purge anything she didn't want congress to see. Whether that purge contained anything pertinent to state or not is still being determined.

As for 2008, she would have lost by a significant amount. People like to say Obama was elected because he is black but the truth is that people were sick of the same old shit which after Bush, a Clinton would have been no different. Obama won because he was new and not a legacy. He offered change simply by not being related to previous administrations. I do agree it was Bill who lost it but not in the way you think.

Electronics are progressing faster then us meat puppets can deal with. We're going to have issues as electronics have the capability to take over more and more of what us humans do.

When you ask someone, what do you do? You generally get an answer of their job. it's part of our internal definition. what happens when you do nothing (and get paid nothing)?

Or, rig 3 phones in advance, wait until it looks like your guy is going to lose, drop off a phone in each stall he used, give the signal and have your guy complain. Then go about proclaiming how shocked you are and how guilty he has to be.

If i was to frame someone, that's what I would do.

Or maybe it's for the same reasons he always turns door knobs to the right or pats his pockets whenever leaving a building or that some baseball players don't change socks until the end of season. People have all sorts of quirks that doesn't mean they are guilty. For years I used to wait until the ace of hearts came up when playing solidare before I would put any aces in the slot.

But some patterns are obvious enough that they could be used to do whatever - like accuse someone of cheating and point to the behavior as proof.

As a libertarian my position never changed, I always root for the individual (and a company is property of an individual, so the same logic applies) to win against the violence of the collective. Governments are the ultimate and most violent (wars) representation of the collective. Government is the ultimate weapon of the mob against an individual and his freedoms. Realizing that the real virtue is in the Individual freedom and the non aggression principle is how you fix the issue of tribalism destroying rationality.

Those who cannot do - sue.

The entire premise of 'anti-trust' coming from a government, ANY government is laughable in every possible way. The only real monopolies that can abuse power are created by governments and it is government power that is abused by them, as for Google and other companies that compete among each other and may become dominant (for some time) in a market - this is due to the choice of the clients, who collectively vote for that company to be in a more dominant position at that time.

You're missing the point I was making. It's not that people 20 years ago would have had a limited idea of what the "phone" could do.

It's that a lot of what we now associate with the smart-"phone" was never really a consequence of the phone- or the phone functionality- itself. Rather, it's a result of the fact that they were driven by *computers* that allowed the introduction of useful but secondary functionality (like calculators, snake, et al) of ever-increasing sophistication. It's the evolution of that to the point that it is more important than the "phone" itself- yet the device retains its vestigial name.

Of course, expensive proto-smartphones had been around since the late 90s (e.g. Nokia 9000 Communicator), but even those were never designed solely as "phones".

Smartphones are as much the successors of portable computers and PDAs as they are of phones, and would be seen as such by someone from the 80s. If you'd asked someone then where (e.g.) the early Psion Organisers might lead us in 30 years time, you would probably have got more insight than asking them questions about "phones".

The only thing such people could be "blamed" for would be not foreseeing that we'd get there via the mobile phone rather than via the PDA/pocket-computer route.

My plan is coming together nicely. Now with him out of the way, nobody can beat me.

Seriously, if I was going to set someone up, this is likely how I would do it. Its sort of like a cop throwing a weapon on the guy he just shot.

What they should have done was turned the sound up and watch for him to go in then listen from the next stall. If they heard the phone, call the number and ask him to step out of the stall.

Or simply... "4K Everything".

It was political whim. The FCC has never taken the position other than internet was information services or the equivalent. They have looked at it and took that position since the 1970s- until recently.

Surprisingly, in order for the FCC to defend any challenges to the move, They will have to explain why every version of it before got it wrong and how at least two of reports on universal access was wrong in their determination that congress did not intend the internet to be regulated and how congress copied their determination from the computers II working paper.

That's misleading. Two decades ago a phone was just a phone, and people back then would assume that's what was meant.

Today's smartphones are effectively portable computers and communications devices that happen to include a phone as part of their functionality- the "smartphone" name is more a legacy of the direction they evolved from (i.e. the phone market) than a reflection of what they are now. If the concept had been invented out of the blue in a world of traditional "dumb" phones (mobile or otherwise), they almost certainly wouldn't be referred to as such.

Arguably they're more akin to a continuation of the concept of a PDA. The fact that they aren't- again- has more to do with where they evolved from and the fact that the market for PDAs (as they were then) had declined quite seriously in the years immediately preceding the iPhone.