1.9V lifespan would be measured in minutes or hours, not days or weeks. At room temperature, 1.9V would damage the processor almost immediately, if not kill it.

In fancy demonstrations and testing like this, the main magic comes not from voltage, but from super conductivity within the processor at the cold temperatures. The cold also increases the lifespan of the chip when using exorbitant amounts of voltage. This doesn't matter to most people or maybe even the poster I'm replying to, but I'm mentioning it here for the general knowledge of anyone who may be interested in speaking accurately about this.

Ultimately though, its the cold that raises the frequency ceiling - sure the voltage helps, but with super-cooled temperatures alone the frequency ceiling is raised even at default voltage./p.

In regards to frequency scaling for Moore's Law, that came to an end in 2004 essentially. It's one topic wikipedia has right if you want to read the details. These days, moore's law only holds true for transistor density, which is why everything is multicore, power efficiency, and integrating more features on chip - there are extra transistors they can fit on the chip and they are finding more things to use that die area for.

I also attended the event, and wrote up a more detailed account of the demonstration and word record result for the overclocking audience: http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-bulldozer-breaks-cpu-frequency-world-record/

Summary is a bit light on sources... pcper.com is good, but you should be looking at multiple reviews to get a well rounded perspective.

Here's a few:
http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-2600k-sandy-bridge-review
http://legitreviews.com/article/1501/1/
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3754/intel_core_i7_2600k_and_core_i5_2500k_sandy_bridge_cpus/index.html
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/7689-intel-core-i5-2500k-processor-review

They're also inside your cereal box. Check your pantry!

You spew data the entire time you are online. What do you care if its attached to a one in a million account, or some anonymous cookie? What is anonymity if it isn't being just an insignificant number in a much larger grand total? Your ideal of "protecting" your data as if its something important or interesting is very 1990's. Technophobic thinking like this is only in vogue with a select subset of Slashdot members and other minorities with ill-conceived notions about their online data.