I am not going to argue what is innovative or not. But, many companies have no clue how to simply keep their products fresh. Design by giant committees keeps a lot of companies stale, and many get killed by change. RIMM comes to mind, and there are many others. Sure RIMM made an "innovative" new phone OS, but so did Apple and Google. RIMM's corporate structure certainly stifled their ability to innovate within a competitive time frame. Even Google recognized they were missing important new product innovations, which they specifically allocate time for their employees to work on (e.g. Twitter).

Sometimes innovation has an important back-end to make that innovation sustainable/workable. Depositing checks via mobile camera, needs a lot of back-end support. Legacy back ends can be very difficult to innovate around, and that is "invisible" to the user.

There is probably a point where the price of oil overtakes the Jevons Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

But, the Paradox does cover situations where more efficiency actually means more consumption.

I wonder what new ones will be introduced. This is a political game. O makes nice sounding announcement for meaningless rules. You want better mileage, crank up the gas tax and make drivers pay for their environmental externalities. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/6-ways-detroit-gamed-the-cafe-standards-flex-fuel-loophole#slide-1

I got rid of my car about 1 year ago, and have never looked back.

In America your business is pirate - you did pirate that, RIAA happens you!

In Soviet Russia iTunes plays you!

In Soviet Russia, that didn't build you.

Because they might expose the Democrats and Republicans for what they are: stupid, and corrupt. It is a two horse race, and the horses parties are very good at keeping it that way.

1) GENETIC SEQUENCING 2) AbioCor Artificial Heart 3) Miniaturized medical devices 3) AIDS drugs 4) Search Algorithms

You do not have a right to do it on someone else's plane, at someone else's airport. And your findlaw statement clearly states the Sec of Transit can regulate it. You have the right to flap your arms and fly, yes. You do not have teh right to demand United airlines take you somewhere on your terms.

Start here http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html

If the searches are not efficient or accurate, then the way they conduct the searches should change. But, there are reasons for scanners, because people are wise to metal detectors, and now building weapons that those cannot detect. Things made of ceramics, plastics etc...

Disagree. You do not have a right to fly or be at an airport. Just like driving, flying is a privilege. IMO this is settled case law. Its an administrative search, and I prefer my planes bomb free. Don't like it, don;t fly.

No, I do not own a Hummer. In fact, I do not even own a car. Bike, and public transit for me.

Could not agree more. I fly 50,000 miles a year. I don't mind it, but I am not a fat heifer either. You want a comfy seat go first class, or get extra legroom, then you can pay up for it. Virgin America is awesome and like Jet Blue you have satellite TV, and movies. I watched the NFL playoffs last year on my Virgin flight. I can imagine the 30's on a 10 hour, bumpy-assed flight that needs to refuel, and I would have missed the playoffs. And the security is no big deal, just follow the freaking rules, and you breeze right through. Give the TSA lip, get the cavity search.