Considering (s)he cared enough to actually make a post, I would say that they could care less, in that they could have not posted anything at all...

The diligence continues the advancement of the science, slow and steady it may be.
Get a large enough pool of students however, and you are likely to find an Einstein, Shakespeare, Heisenberg or Hawking.

You don't need the geniuses around all the time, and in fact that can become problematic if the I.Q. density reaches critical mass,
as egos clash and brilliant flames are burned out too quickly trying to shine the brightest.

The occasional paradigm-shifting insight or perspective it all it takes to give guidance to the army of the diligent for the next period of refinement and progress.

This of course assumes the genius isn't burned at the stake for heresy or committed to an institution first.

They already did, but no one paid it any attention.

If math cannot be patented, then digital logic, which is binary mathematics, cannot be patented, which makes hardware unpatentable as well. Of course, anyone so inclined, and with sufficient knowledge, can describe anything in mathematical terms, which by that logic would thus invalidate all patents. Certainly, since the one of the foundations of quantum theory is the many worlds hypothesis, which is mathematical in nature, states that all possibilities occur somewhere in the multiverse, all things are also prior art.

Never heard of long pig?

There are no good reasons for giving up bacon! After all bacon is a vegetable.

That may well be true, but, the website based social networking sites are far from the first to utilize this "technology"

This has a very strong similarity to "elite" status granted to users of old school dial up BBSs for uploading or otherwise providing coveted data or services. Such similar systems were even loosely in place within AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and other dial-up ISPs long before 1998. Even forum profiles could conceivably fall into this category.

1) Buy company that "invents" un-patented technology everyone is using.
2) Patent said technology yourself, because the USPTO can't be bothered to actually think about what they are doing.
3) Wait for the other users of "your" technology to make a substantial amount of money.
4) Profit!

I can't even begin to calculate the probability of a single bit flip due to impact from a cosmic ray causing unintended acceleration in multiple vehicles. Possible? Certainly, nearly anything is. Plausible? Maybe in a very broad sense of the world. Likely? Not very.

Too many divergent threads with faulty assumptions to respond to each individually, and obviously many of you did not bother to read beyond the summary, if that.

Just because your iPhone has a 600MHz processor does not make it equivalent to a 10 year old computer. It is not running a fully functional operating system, does not have the same capabilities as a desktop system of that era even in sheer number crunching capabilities, and if your portable device attempted such, it would quickly drain the batteries due to inefficient components that lose a significant portion of their energy to current leakage and heat dissipation, while at the same time overheating the components themselves to a point of failure. Try using you iPhone to render high polygon count 3D models and see how it performs. Besides these simple points, there were distinct leaps in production technology that allow this approximation of performance to even occur. More efficient chip based transistors being a primary factor of not needing a large cooling system attached to the back of your phone to allow your display to show you video at a decent framerate

A virtually ideal component is one that is almost 100% efficient, with little to no leakage and heat loss. With the reduction in waste heat, more components can be in close proximity to one another without interfering in their operation by skewing values due to heating. This new design is much faster than a traditional transistor, requires much less energy to bias, and is easy to manufacture.

From the second page of the article:

This squeezing is a biasing voltage, and no actual current flow through the gate is required, only a potential. Since there is no valence junction to bias before current can flow from source to drain, you do not need to supply signals of sufficient voltage to be registered, again requiring much less energy to operate.

Cost reduction is another key benefit of this technology, rather than having to grow the silicates with an inaccurate doping method over a preformed substrate, which leads to inefficiencies in power consumption and the need for large transition zones due to no two junction type semiconductors having the exact same biasing voltages, which is why standard CMOS is off at 0.8V or lower, and generally on at 2.0V or higher, depending on tolerance. Transistors using less power to transition from one state to the other require less powerful power supplies, enabling even more compact designs, and to top it off, the technology is robust enough to directly interface with CMOS.

I realize it takes more than a cursory knowledge of electronics to understand the true implications of this, which is why a number of you have made incorrect assumptions, but with a bit of extra reading, I firmly believe that at least some of you could become as excited about this breakthrough as I am.

Something to get excited about in the field of basic electronic components. Virtually ideal transistors that are easy to fabricate will revolutionize the nanoprocessor industry. I can see cell phones with the computing power of todays desktops in the next 5-10 years from this.

It is interesting how much that diagram resembles the path of creation and destruction from Wu Xing. Having not read the referenced book, I do not know if this was independently derived, or built upon from this ancient Chinese philosophy, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

If you watch carefully, the "Full Solve", which states such and claims to be a "totally random cube (Honest)", takes 10.75 seconds, including inspection. The 2.01 second solve is a demonstration of the MINIMUM time required for "inspecting and making one twist" on an unsolved cube. It is the blogger, and not the video, who makes the claims of solving in 2.01 seconds, and while it technically is a solve, the inventor rightfully does not claim such. The world record human solve of 7.08 seconds is not including the untimed inspection period. I would not consider this a dishonest video, since the video does not claim anything but the 10.75s solve to be a real solve, which by the rules of the second video's competition, would actually be an 8.74s solve....

While both of these statements may be true, that does not make them equate one to the other. There are many people, myself included, with a broadband connection of >10Mbps that do not use YouTube for the simple fact that there is rarely anything of intellectual interest to be found within its pages. The rare YouTube video that does fill the role of intellectually stimulating is usually found through the dissertation pertaining to the content rather than browsing YouTube.

All Fallout games have been referred to as simulations in their respective manuals, the premise from the original Fallout being that these were simulations experienced by Vault dwellers to prepare them for life outside the vault.