I'm skeptical on all five of these:
1. No matter what, the law of Conservation of Energy cannot be broken, ever. There's no free source of energy, period. (more on this below) Furthermore, of course, what would power companies say about this?
2. I can't see biometrics being any more secure... If anything, they'd be LESS secure, since that means anyone with a good photo of your eyes, and (possibly) a copy of your fingerprints and/or a strand of your hair would be able to fool EVERYTHING. With a password they at least have to try and crack it. Biometrics may be added as ADDITIONAL security, but it's NO replacement for other forms of it.
3. This, in all honesty, would be less convenient than many existing forms of input, such as the keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, and controller. Wearable readers are still inconvenient, and implanted devices are, of course, only something that makes sense for the handicapped. For the impaired, I can definitely see these sort of devices gaining a lot of popularity, but perhaps not so much for gadgets as for prosthesis.
4. This really sounds a lot like advertising... Of course, this could be compared to a "pro-active Siri," but even then, I'm predicting that, like either other people chiming in, people would just find this annoying. And it sorely misses the mark by suggesting this would eliminate the "Digital divide." Do they even remember what said "divide" is?
5. No, simply NO. The whole reason for advertisements existing in the information age is to try and present people with things that they aren't already wanting. If they would've bought said product anyway, it was wasted ad dollars. If someone is actively searching for a specific product, they are NOT going to be looking for advertisements... They're going to go to Google, Angie's List, or some other SERVICE that will provide them with things. This is something people pay for (indirectly) rather than receive as a negative experience. I see such services being used more and more, and, while one could predict that they'd become a primary source of revenue, they'd be wrong for the reason that they already are.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]single car breaks, when you break it slows you down but it also generates power for the battery, I'm guessing it's things like that they say running shoes would provide power but just imagine if shoes could provide power to a small device like a phone, effectively making running out of power damn near impossible.[/citation]
What they were referring to is the most-ignored (if most un-ignorable) law in physics: that of Conservation of Energy. (also known as the First Law of Thermodynamics) There's no such thing as free energy, (or power, fuel, etc) and this applies to EVERYTHING. If you're grabbing power for something, it's coming from SOMWHERE. Hybrid cars? Regenerative braking merely recovers the energy from the car's momentum. (with normal braking, it's all dissipated as heat, hence why brake pads are made of asbestos or ceramic)
Similarly, if your own movements are powering something, this means you're going to be expending extra energy to do so. No, it's NOT going to be energy you wouldn't be expending normally. Any device that'd be converting back-and-forth motions is going to wind up acting more as a "drag" than an otherwise inert object, as it will be acting as a deceleration on all your movements.