Ok lets say it has to be a permanent heart valve.

For math ease, let's say a heart beats at 60 beats per minute (once per second .. though average resting heart rates are usually a little faster than that).

So to calculate how many days it will take to go through 10 million cycles we do Number of cycles / (Hours in a day x Minutes in an hour x Beats in a minute) = 10,000,000 / (24 x 60 x 60) = 10,000,000 / 86,400 = 115.74 = about 116 days .. nearly 4 months.

So unless they can get say 100 million or more out of it I don't think this will find much use outside of a temporary heart valve.

Oh yeah? http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

We can easily use technology and get enough seafood .. have you seen how big the ocean is? If we had the will we could set up massive netted farm areas .. it's already being done in some scale for blue fin tuna. For land meat .. we can grow meat via tissue culture in the extreme case. There's already project to gneetically engineer yeast to produce milk and milk proteins. In fact a lot of our caloric intake can come from plant and animal tissue culture. We could grow our calories and produce milk via yeast in large vats. We can have enough water through desalination. These can all be run on nuclear energy with no pollution.

That survey only looked at patents issued on a single day. There are still a couple hundred thousand unexamined patents from the 80s and 90s .. what will the patent term adjustment look like when they issue?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

i) Yes, unless it qualifies for a patent term adjustment.
ii) virtually every patent issued nowadays is delayed so much that patent term adjustments are virtually guaranteed. You always get it when the USPTO doesn't approve your patent within a specified time as a result of their delays.
iii) Yes.
iv) If the patent is delayed they can get back royalties from others who independently came up with similar technology during the time in which the patent was being processed -- at least recently new applications are being published within 18 months so this issue is diminished for new filed applications. But then it's still a problem because of the issue referred to in (v) .. a company can collect on standards essential technology for extended periods of time and technology can't really advance while someone owns a monopoly for such a long time.
v) There isn't only one patent on HDTV you ditz. HDTV is covered by hundreds of patents on the various technologies that comprise it. A single company can have a patent on the audio encoding and a separate one on the video processing aspect -- they can collect on the audio encoding patent when it issues and then collect for an extended period on the video processing part when that issues. In fact many companies have more than one patent on HDTV. Look at how many companies had patents on mp3 technology .. just google it fool.

It is absurd that the USPTO has a massive backlog on patent issuance -- by law, it is expected that a patent term is 20 years from the filing date -- however there is an exception to that rule if the patent is not issued within 2 years -- if the patent is not issued within 2 years (due to a USPTO delay) the clock on that 20 years is paused until the patent issues. There are still hundreds of thousands of patents filed on things like HDTV which havent yet issued. It means that HDTV technology will be patent encumbered for the long term future. Nobody has the incentive to fix it. If you wanted to make an open hardware HDTV, you can't do it royalty free because a lot of the HDTV standards essential technologies are still patented and will STAY patented virtually forever thanks to the USPTO patent backlog. Why would any tech companies object to that? They make money off the patents they filed that got issued PLUS the ones that were filed but the USPTO hasnt taken action on them. Think about it this way if Sony filed two patents on HD technology, they get one of them issued fairly quickly within 2 years .. and then by luck or bribery the USPTO action on the second patent is delayed 19 years just as the first patent is expiring .. then because it's the USPTO's fault that the second patent didnt issue .. they get to claim 17 years of additional monopoly on the HD technology. I am not against patents, I am against infinitely long patents .. which are unconstitutional .. yet in practice the USPTO is enabling it. Let's not forget that the constitution only authorizes patent rights if and only if they enable the advancement of the useful arts and sciences (and those too for limited times).

The keys are practically next to each other.

This means if your laptop has nmap, burp suite, metasploit, or Ida pro etc. and you visit China with it .. you could be arrested when you come back. How freaking stupid is that? Also, a lot of times it's hard to draw the line between debugging tools and penetration testing tools.

I took a few Khan academy courses on MBA stuff, so I can translate it from corporate speak to straight talk:

1. Long range outlook: batteries or fuel cells?

Answer: I have no freaking clue bro.

2. Charging at gas stations?

Answer: Not gonna happen.

3. The volt has poor aesthetics, will the GM skateboard's swappable chassis concept become real?

Answer: Some people are buying ugly, so we'll continue to sell it. I am going to ignore your question about the GM skateboard and swappable chassis (which are never gonna happen btw) and talk about fuel cells instead. Fuel cells -- I know nothing about them.

4. Will I be able to buy a Spark EV in Georgia?

Answer: No, we don't sell to hicks. We would only consider selling you guys a car that isn't ever going to be made.

5. What is Chevy's plans to extend the Voltec system into other models such as the Trax and/or the Equinox?

Answer: Never gonna happen. We still want your money though, so why don't you buy one of our cars that use the same floor mat as a Volt?

6. Why don't you guys advertise the Volt?

Answer: Have you seen the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" starring the EV1? Well, we are setting up the Volt to star in the sequel.

7. Will you guys make hybrid pickups again?

Answer: No, we rather sell you the gas guzzlers and get the oil company kickbacks.

8. Are you guys benefitting from Tesla's open patents?

Answer: Yes, but we'll never admit it. Btw, did you know that GM's vagina is much deeper than anyone else's?

9. Would you guys ever use ultracapacitors?

Answer: What's an ultracapacitor? I am going to have to google that one.

10. Would you make the charging go faster?

Answer: No. Deal with it.

11. How is the upcoming Chevy Bolt going to get 200 miles per charge with a base price of $30,000?

Answer: It is impossible.

There are no TVs with usable voice control. I rather use a TV without a remote with a knob on the TV that makes me get up from the couch to change volume or channels than the voice control in Samsung Smart TV.

I lol at everyone thinking there is no way to break into and dominate the supposedly saturated TV market. First off, as long as there are people who have money, even the market for pet rocks is not saturated as long as you can put some lipstick on it. Is the market for luxury anything saturated? As long as the human need to show off oneself as superior exists the market will never die. You diamond dust the carbon fiber bezel and make it expensive enough someone will want it. Second, current TV interfaces are horrible and unusable. Using a TV should be as easy as walking into your living room and saying "TV, ESPN" then when you see that ESPN is boring you should be able to say "TV, recommend some popular action movies I haven't seen" .. And then a list of choices should pop up. We ALREADY have the voice recognition ability to make this possible. Google Now and Siri work fine with a TV full volume in the background so you can't tell me a TV can't cancel out its own sound. Why is it that Samsung smart tv voice recognition is worse than on a Galaxy phone?? And Samsung smart tv has no natural language query interpretation ability. It can't even identify its own channels!!
So basically it's very simple for a company like Apple to make a compelling TV product if they invest resources in it. And that's even assuming they don't buy or create their own Netflix and offer on demand streaming content for subscription. Mind you they have the $$ capital and heavyweight to offer much better content than Netflix. So yeah a compelling and differentiated TV is certainly possible and plausible in spite of the naysayers. Samsung and Google would never be able to deliver on it, only Apple can.

That's just false. The screen power drain is mostly due to the backlight which is no more brighter than any other screen so that won't draw more power. As for the GPU it doesn't have to render the image fully in situations where 1080p suffices .. it can just render at 1080p and then upscale the image to 4k.

Actually the Oculus requires nothing less than a 10K display (5K per eye according to my calculation) .. so they need to get to around 2000 ppi ... Honestly I am not sure if that is even possible within 20 years.

How many calls do you fools get that you need to screen calls? "Ring Ring .. let me check my douchewatch .. hmm .. not answering!"
Answer all your calls. I can see the need for a smartwatch to answer texts though. When someone texts you, respond on your douchewatch with "call me" and then don't answer the phone.