Disposable tattoos: I wonder how easy it would be to come up with a family of dye for tattoos based on the same compound (with different groups that change the color).  If they could come up with several families of tattoo dyes like that they might actually be able to simply immunize you against the whole family of dye.  Don't want your tattoo?  No problem, one shot and your immune system destroys them in a matter of days.  Obviously you could never get another with that family of dye after the shot.

Food prices: I do wonder what the food prices are going to be like this year.  We've had extremely late snows (snowed in June in Canada and some of the Northern US) and colder than normal winters.  It's similar to what happened last year (biofuels only made matters worse).

Flaw in global warming math: I noticed an amusing problem in the fundamental global warming math.  I've been vaguely aware of the issue but I finally nailed it down and figured out the proper way to explain it.  Basically they work out the increase in maximum theoretical absorption by CO2 for whatever increase (usually a doubling of CO2).  The problem is that this figure assumes the CO2 in question is at absolute zero.  (-273C).  They say that the radiation is stopped and reradiated with half of it going down.  They call that "back radiation".  The problem is that CO2 doesn't work like that.  It emits all by its self based on its temperature and concentration.  IF the CO2 were at the temperature of the ground it wouldn't stop ANY of the radiation.  Well, it would...but it would emit just as much on its own (out of its own heat) as it absorbed and re-emitted back down from other sources.  If you're going to calculate the increase in absorption you need to work ALSO know the temperature of the coldest absorbing layer.  Turns out this is 220k (about 70C colder than the surface).  The MAXIMUM affect is therefore about 1/2 (or less) of the increase expected by all the global warming math you see.