This new helicopter blade is supposed to reduce the noise produced by the rotor, and the linked article has some interesting computer data to back it up. But, It looks very similar to the wing configuration of a hawk or other predatory bird. Given that hawks and owls often dive their prey at high speed, reducing the noise produced by their approach increases their success rate.

I'm not surprised that CFD shows that function follows a form that's existed in nature for years.

Avatar isn't the first 3D film - or the first sci-fi film - to tackle issues of colonialism, and neither is it the first to feature CGI characters. If the set-up of the movie had been that original, not even Cameron could have got such lavish backing for it. The game-changer must be the best, not the newest. It must take familiar and popular elements to a new level. The previous two game-changers were not distinguished by their originality, but by their extraordinary invention and their capacity to place a new spin on what had gone before.

I saw this gem in a review of James Cameron's new movie Avatar. It's certainly not the first time I've read variations on this view of commercially successful innovators. But it bears repeating. The first-mover advantage doesn't mean much if your implementation isn't great. In fact, innovators face a tremendous challenge overcoming inertia. That's why Hollywood sequels are such a mainstay of box office commercialism. People know what they're getting and it doesn't require much cognitive effort from buyers to make the 'safe' choice.

So the lesson I take from these kind of examples is that you really need to focus on what your product does for the end-user, not necessarily what new technology is under the covers. The really great products take a technology that is new (but not-quite-bleeding-edge) and combine it with a deep understanding of what problems it can solve for the viewer, user, or buyer.

Just don't overdo it.