You're overlooking that adding more viewing angles doesn't change fact that you're only adding more sweet spots, with the requirement that your eyes must not be located in between sweet spots. Otherwise given sweet spots A and B, your right eye could be looking at the left eye version of sweet spot A, and your left eye could be looking at the right eye version sweet spot B.

So you still have to keep your head still and within the sweet spot otherwise you creep into an inverted 3D image. Only thing you're adding with extra directions is extra viewers, where each viewer is watching an effectively 2 direction monitor, and you're back where you started.

You'd need to be able to do eye tracking with directional projection if you want to expand the sweet spot, or, just use a pair of cheep circular polarized glasses.

Look, I expect a computer to adhere to Moore's law. Why shouldn't there be a Moore's law for lesser energy.

Today it is possible to have houses which consume almost no oil for heating at all. Austria is leading here.

My cell phone keeps up for 72 hours thanks to new electronics which consumes less. Seven years ago I was lucky to get 7h uptime.

Probably my computer monitor consumes a whole lot of energy and it is possible to reduce that.

In Germany our household consumption is
11% for TV/Radio, 11% Lights, 12% PC/telco, 8,5% Cooking. That shows the potential when you aggregate the national consumption. Adopt tiny improvements in technology and get rid off 2 or 3 nuclear power plants.

For me effiency is about achieving the same with less. And ideally I want to be energy autark, farm my own energy without any dependency on crazy sheiks and rising oil prices. My dream would be zero energy costs.

And there is a lot done by the authority, in particular energy efficiency is seen as a competitive advantage for our exports. And the Energy efficiency label was so successful that you basically can just buy A+ or A++ machines.

Comparing lesson plans to coding is an excellent idea.

IP laws are fairly specific when it comes to code, and I imagine there would be a similar application to a lesson plan. For example, if I write a script that checks how many people are logged in to a computer, that script can't be protected by Intellectual property laws, because it isn't necessary to run the core business, and it is easily duplicable by nearly anyone with a bare modicum of programming knowledge. Therefore, I can take that script to my next job. On the other hand, if I were to write a payroll system for my company, which gives them a competitive edge in the marketplace, I COULDN'T take that with me to my next job.

I imagine schools would be the same way. As long as lesson plans are piecemeal, doing well-known tasks like M&M math, there is no way to claim Intellectual Property violations. If the teacher decides that 2-3 hours of their time spent developing the same lesson plan is more valuable than the $3.50 or whatever to purchase the lesson plan, more power to them. On the other hand, if the school has treated lesson plans as a global resource, and has collectively planned them out, and really built a lasting teaching system that makes kids successful, a teacher can't go selling these lesson plans, and the teacher doesn't really own their contributions to them, any more than I would own my contributions to a payroll system I might help write.

The best plan is for all of us to talk about it, until some enterprising geek makes a 'schoolforge' website, where we can download lesson plans for free, and then we will end up with an 'open source' lesson plan library, and a 'paid' lesson plan library. People can chose to monetize, or not, and everyone is happy.

That's interesting. As I think about it, I wander over to my aquarium and stare pensively. The water looks clean, the guppies seem as happy as guppies get. The seaweed is wafting gently back and forth. But wait, do I really see my aquarium? Or am I only staring at its surface?

Suddenly seized by philosophical doubts, I hold my hand in front of my face. Can I see my hand? —or only my palm?

Your remark is similar to one made by the British philospher G.E. Moore, in a paper published some time in the 1940s (I think). Can't remember the title at the moment...might have been "A Defence of Common Sense".

I'm a motorcyclist. I wear a helmet on my way to the bank, and for the colder half of the year, I wear a ski mask underneath that.

Banks are pretty touchy about masks. I've never tried to wear one into the bank, but they've actually stopped me from putting on my helmet on the way out, even after they had my face on camera.

I find that it tends to make (mall) security officers a little tense as well.

Interestingly, people tend to be more nervous about the mask than the helmet. I installed a nose guard which effectively covers the ski mask - you can't easily tell I'm wearing one by looking through the visor. People seem a little more relaxed.

All the banks I go to have ATMs on the outside. I never take my helmet off when I use them, and I've never had any trouble because of it.

I strongly suspect that if you walked into a bank wearing a ski mask for no obvious reason, an officer would be called by the time you got to the teller, and you'd be arrested on your way out.