Not witty at all. Evolution is continuous. For example, one can compare energy costs backwards from nuclear, coal, back to cutting wood. People use energy ... not that hard to make an estimate for slide-rule energy costs. There used to be people who were paid to work 8-hours a day doing calculations by hand (including military ballistic tables). Why would *you* assume that tube-based computers are comparable to an IPad? The fact there there are general "rules" that appear to apply across an extremely wide range of technologies is what makes observations like Moore's Law interesting in the first place. I am an educator. You should not assume that unusual questions are inappropriate. In fact, there was a fascinating TED talk on the cost of light back through the 18th century. Why would observations on the cost of computing not be as valid an area of study as the cost of artificial light?

I would like to see not only the Babbage engine on your curve, but also the abacus and slide rule. Maybe the physical Rod, too, which used to be used in surveying. (Hey, you try calculating property area using pencil, paper, and a deed.)

Anybody who can hack into the communications link (already published -- easy to crack) can tell if you are home or not. Ideal for someone wanting to break in. Also, a working husband can easily track a stay-at-home (maybe) wife's activity.

Senator Maria Cantwell: "This is not a patent reform bill. This is a big corporation patent give away that tramples on the rights of small inventors."

Thanks for asking.

First, you say that patent filing and innovation are unrelated. I think most people would disagree. Perhaps you and I differ on the definition of innovation. You say, “you don’t need to patent.” Protection of intellectual property has been recognized nearly globally for hundreds of years. It costs a great deal more to develop then replicate. Compare, for example, the cost to create a new video game to the cost to duplicate same. If there is no compensation for creators, then innovation would slow to a tiny trickle. Some people are OK with that, but that is not the current system.

The “micro-entity” applies to the first four patents per inventor. Most inventors are prolific, so that isn’t worth much either way. It’s a nice token, however. I doubt there are any effective “single patent” patent trolls. It’s just not economical.

By the way, there is already a new “expedite” option, where for $4000 an applicant is promised a fast track. Since there are no more people in the USPTO (they have had a hiring freeze ordered by congress for a year) this means the “regular” filers will be processed even slower. Big companies don’t care about the $4000 and just pay it. Independent inventors are screwed in a bunch of ways, and this is one of them. Most innovation comes from independents and tiny companies. Cisco, for example, has bought over 150 other companies--that is how they buy other people's innovations and patent portfolios.

I don’t agree with your analysis of a reduction in taxes. If 50% of the country were unemployed, you would say that was a tax reduction. Tax rates are per payer, not per total revenue received.

The fake logbook thing doesn’t happen, in practice. During interference, which will end under the new bill, the Office requires third party proof. Also, the current system is not really “first to invent,” because in order to get that benefit, the “first inventor” is required to “continuously” have worked on the invention. That is generally true for a large company doing product development, but rarely true for independent inventors. In most cases (68%) of interference the “first to reduce to practice” (i.e. build a working product) wins the interference.

Competent polls of patent professionals (I am a patent agent) show a wide split on beliefs as to the “value” of the new bill. Most people agree it will make a negligible difference. It certainly won’t create jobs and won’t reduce litigation. There is some chance it might make the patent office a touch more efficient (or maybe the opposite). It will hopefully reduce the number of bad patents – and everyone agrees that there were too many of those in the past.

The patent office makes a profit -- over $1 billion dollars profit, in fact. Money that goes into the US Treasury for congress to spend how it likes. The patent bill just passed raises patent "fees" by 15% immediately. These are only partially fees, because of the excess. Now there is more excess. This is simply a tax on innovation. There is simply no other way to look at it. Where are all those Republicans who said, "no new taxes?" Where are the democrats who said they support innovation in this country.

When Canada passed the exact same change 10 years ago (changing from first-to-invent to first-to-file) independent inventor applications dropped by 50% and have never recovered. This bill was pushed entirely by large corporations who don't want to pay the real innovators for their inventions.

You don't close it all the way. Leave it open about an inch. Macbooks, being well designed, don't fall closed. Pretty hard to watch porn through that one-inch crack (no pun intended). Don't they test you on that in the Cert test ??

1) Go into an apple store and download porn using their free wi-fi. You don’t need to keep you laptop open, or anything. You can use the hour or so it takes for your genius bar appointment.

2) Use the free wi-fi at a Starbucks; might be a bit slow.

3) Use the free wi-fi from any hotel parking lot. You might have to ask the clerk for the password, or maybe a housekeeper.

4) Use the unprotected wi-fi in your neighborhood. There are usually several. I recommend checking out senior housing. Sometimes a resident has died but the network stays up for years.

5) Download a cracking tool and crack WEP in 20 seconds. Most residential networks are protected on WEP.

6) If anyone can think of a solution to plug copyright leaks, no matter how crazy, let me know.

I had the privilege of hearing a detailed talk by an ex, high-level spook. He explained the current bottlenecks of gov't intelligence services to doing useful work. Storing lots of data was not on the list. His talk supported the comments in "Not the government" post.

NOT, actually. Nobody will invest in a mine at ANY market price because history shows that China is likely to AGAIN drop prices in the future, driving other mines out of business. THUS, some kind of guarantee for investors is needed.

The rest of the world (read: US) does not have rare earth mineral (which aren't rare at all, actually) mines because China has a long history of simply lowering prices until all competing mines have gone out of business. China considers that having a monopolistic source for rare earths gives them substantial manufacturing advantages for thousands of products, including florescent lights, medical supplies, and disk drives.

IMHO all of these products, including motors for hybrid vehicles, are too important to allow China to trivial blackmail the rest of the world at their pleasure. All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

I would like to make it clear that NO ORGANIZATION need respond to a subpoena without a fight. There are a thousand ways that a public or private entity can get a subpoena issued for your private information. Basically, a party simply asks the court to issue one, and the court does. The receiver or other "affected parties" have every right to object to the subpoena and demand a hearing. For example, an ISP could insist on a suitable delay in order to inform the user of the subpoena and give the user the time and information necessary to fight the subpoena. If, after a hearing, the court finds the subpoena valid, it will issue a "court order," that had better be followed, or the recipient can be charged with contempt of court.

ISPs, banks, and other organization regularly roll over when issued subpoenas, coughing up all the customer's information without giving the customer the opportunity to respond and object. The underlying issue might be a nasty divorce, an evil contractor, a whiny neighbor, or a gov't employee fishing for glory. Most large organizations have some small print in their terms of use or account contract that says that the customer gives up the right to question subpoenas and that the organization will obey subpoenas no matter who they are from without first warning the customer.

I know personally of one organization that holds private customer data and simply ignores all subpoenas. They have received hundreds over the years, but not a single court order. So those lawyer types and account PR people who say they "have to" obey subpoenas are not telling the (whole) truth.

Note that attorneys and medical provides have "special rules" protecting client information. Funny how that works, huh?

For people who care about privacy, many of us would pay a bit extra for service from an organization that promises to put our interests first.

Disclaimers: (1) IANAL, so by definition, "this is not legal advice." Consult your attorney. (2) Some subpoenas require secrecy, and there are homeland defense subpoenas that are different, but these types are actually rare.

If you read the complete PDF from Sandia, the author points out that the boundary layer inefficiency "doesn't apply to laptops." Here is the quote from the paper:

Could low-cost computers that read your physical behavior launch an entire new industry of “real world” personal apps?

Could it tell if you are brushing your teeth properly?

Could it remind you to hang up your clothes, instead of leaving them on the floor?

Could it determine that your love-making skills are not up to par, and offer specific suggestions for better technique or timing?

Oh! The mind boggles at how much people would pay for those apps.