Safari on my MacBook Air opened it fine, though it took about four seconds. Zooming works fine as well. It does take ~3GB of memory according to Activity Monitor.

I grew up on a farm and I used to love reading through Farm Show magazine to see all the DIY inventions the other farmers would come up with. I just checked and it looks like it's still published though there's not much available on their website without a subscription which is too bad.

It isn't. But if you move straight to 7nm you only need to recoup the costs for 7nm, not 10nm + 7nm.

"Comprises" is a term that has a specific usage in patents. Comprises means that at least all of the listed elements must exist but other elements that are not mentioned in the claim may also be present.

The alternative phrase is "consists of" which means that only the listed elements may be present. I think it's mostly used when claiming chemical or molecular formulas.

I am not a native speaker of English. In http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/comprise_comp... the difference is:

Make sure you name all the constituent parts when using comprise or compose. The word to use when other elements are may also be present is include.

The elements one, two, and three composed the set {1,2,3}. The set {1,2,3} is comprised of three elements. The set {1,2,3,4} includes the elements one, two and three.

In http://www.thefreedictionary.com/include all this is clarified, the botton line or golden rule of usage (edited).

  Some writers insist that include be used only when it is followed by a partial list of the contend of the reference of the subject. This restriction is too strong. The use of comprise or consist of  will avoid ambiguity when a listing is meant to be exhaustive.

I agree that it's the opposite of standard usage but that's how it's interpreted in patent language. Here's a quote straight from the USPTO website:

"The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps." http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html

There are other non-standard interpretations in patent language. For example, "a" or "an" is not necessarily a singular but can mean "one or more". Also the inventor is free to provide their own definitions for words they use in the patent specification.

That definition of "comprise" is more or less the opposite of the British English definition, where "A comprises B, C and D" means "A includes B, C and D and nothing else." E.g Parliament comprises the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen.

I agree. It confused me when I first started looking at patents but the accepted usage in patent law is that it is open-ended and can include other non-mentioned elements.

That's what I thought initially when I encountered the word, but there were judges ruled in patent cases where "comprise" means the items making up the entire parent item, no more no less.

Do you remember the specific cases? I'd be interested in knowing the details of these rulings. If you look at the Garrod Glossaries you'll find several examples of the "open-ended" claim construction for comprising.