The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

and if you have a lazy $10k burning a hole in your pocket, you can play it in 12K resolution!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/12K-PC-Gaming

Your video, 10328x7760 - A 10K Timelapse Demo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

100 lbs to LEO for $1M: that's $10k/lb. Cheaper than the space shuttle, but a fair bit more than what the private launch folks (will eventually) launch for. Also the video doesn't show de-orbit or passivization of the 2nd stage, meaning this is a potential source of a lot of new space junk. Furthermore, since this is Darpa/military, it strikes me as a cover story for further weaponization of space.

I think it normally depends on the mountain. As I see it, most people have an issue with destroying mountains for things like mining because 1) they disagree with the reasoning for it, 2)it's in places where people can see the damage, and more importantly 3) those 'mountains' are often much lower altitude and are decent habitats for critters with significant water runoff that's contaminated by 'mountain top removal'. When you're talking 9-10K feet up, beyond the tree line, there's far less habitat being destroyed (granted, something likely lives there that's now dead or displaced). That means it's not 0 damage done, but far less damage to what most people consider important. Very few people care about damaging the rock itself, mostly Shinto and Buddhists I would guess. Personally I find this a good trade off of damage vs possible gain, but of course I don't live there.
I'm wondering how this is better than the VLTA http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/vlt/
I expected there to be no more giant telescopes made now that they know how to combine smaller ones to simulate large ones. I wonder why they went this way on this project?

NSA knows what's best for you.

I mean, surely their filtering algorithms have already analyzed a more accurate profile of you, than what your psychiatrist ever could? What with all the years of records of your internet searches, emails and videosift comments..

Seriously though, about this nice video, if you have a popular smartphone, no matter how you trust that fruit, droid or window logo, there's seriously no real guarantees that your activities are not recorded in whichever way, whenever. Any data on 'customers' is precious to these companies, or the NSA for that matter.

To be a bit cynical, I'd say that most people don't mind, they can't perceive anything strongly negative to come out of any of these privacy breaches. After all, so far the system has kept them relatively safe from the other ones, the evil ones.

To be even more cynical I'd say this hip guy, 10k likes on FB and all, seems to be quite smoothly riding the next generation's "My mom uses FB" disdain to .. I don't know? Maybe try to gain respect among this, certainly most sought after viewer demography, the younger generation, about to become consumers?

It could even be that he makes money on ads on YT views? But certainly Youtube, or their parent company, would never breach anyone's privacy, or make questionable sudden changes to their TOCs? Say, they wouldn't use the Chrome browser's or the Android OS's capabilities to use a connected mic to sift through recorded data?

Well, in any case, I've got to appreciate anyone who makes these matters more public and talked about, what ever their motives might be.

On another topic, as a loyal user of Google's mostly brilliant services, and mobile operating system, I was quite surprised to realize that I could see where I (or my phone) had been about, through their service here: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory

Luckily the feature can be turned off from the same site. I mean I'm sure it's off now, because I can't see any data there anymore..

It's been tested and the "best" audiophiles can't hear differences between 14bit and 16bit, nor can they hear differences between 44.khz and ANYTHING higher. In some tests they could use12bit sound with 36khz sampling frequency... The differences they hear are inside their head. Thus the description of improved sound is always "air", "brilliance", "organic" etc.. Don't be fooled by their fancy gear, most of it is for nothing. Cables: i am always willing to bet my months salary on doubleblind tests, 10 000€/m against a coat hanger, no audible differences.. It's all about confirmation bias, you think there's a change and suddenly you hear it.

About MP3s vs PCM:
Here we have audible differences. But. Put on high enough energy, ie turn your amp high enough, suddenly double blind studies can't find which is which. But it can be audible, mp3 is lossy format and even 320kbps can be heard. Not with all material, it's about in the limits of human hearing. Some might hear high end loss, if you're in your twenties. Once you hit 40, everything above 17khz is gone, forever. You will never hear 20k again. And to really notice the difference, you need good gear. Your laptop earphone output most likely won't even output anything past 18khz well and it's dynamic range can be represented with 8bit depth.. It can be just horrible. Fix that with usb box, around 80€: you can take that box anywhere on planet to the most "hifiest" guy out there and he can't hear the difference between his 10000€ A/D converter.. In fact, 5€ A/D converter can produce the same output as 3000€ one... That's not why i said buy a external.. It's more to do with RF and other shielding, protection against the noises a computer makes than A/D conversion quality. Note, i'm talking about audible differences, you can find faults with measuring equipment and 95% of the gear price is about "just to be sure".

If you want a good sound, first, treat your room. Dampen it, shape it.. If you spent 10k on stereo and 0 on acoustics, you will not have a good sound no matter what you do. Spend the same amount on acoustics than what you do on you equipment, room makes a lot more differences than gear. Next comes speakers, they are the worst link in the chain by a large margin. Quality costs, still wouldn't go to extremes here either, the changes are again "just to be sure", not always audible.. Then amps, beefy, low noise, A/B. You don't need to spend a huge lot of money but some. Then cables.. Take the 50€ version instead of 300€ or 3000€. Build quality and connectors, durability. Those are the reason to buy more expensive than 5€. Not because of sound quality.. There will always be group of people that will swear they can hear the differences, that's bullcrap. Human ear CAN NOT detect any chances, even meters are having a REALLY hard time getting any changes. You need to either amp up the signal to saturation point, or use frequencies in the Mhz ranges, thousands of times higher than what media needs to get any changes between cheapest crap and high end scams.

Audiophiles can't be convinced they are wrong, they are suffering from the same thing antivax people do: give them facts, they will be even more convinced they are right.

@VoodooV 5 grand? That's just the cost of the gpus! The whole rig came out at over 10k. And yeah, it's ridiculous, but it's meant to be. It's the Bugatti Veyron of gaming pcs, it's more about seeing what's possible than being actually useful.

@lucky760 I still play heaps of TF2 and it's still pretty popular. The CoD MW guys have moved on to whatever the latest CoD is.

@serosmeg, I played the beta. I have an old Amd quad core and a hd6950 gpu. Neither are close to top of the line these days and the game ran fine.

If that is all true (and I read through much of the linked study and made little sense of it since I'm not a nutritionist and only took one semester of advanced molecular biology, it was particularly technical and hard to follow), then golden rice seems to be the exception.
As I read it, 55-70% the RDA was the maximum vitamin A that could be expected, with the range being quite large. (oddly they cite a 200 gram rice dose given in the study has 1.3mg b-carotene/3.8 to get .34mg retinol, then a 100 gram dose is estimated to provide 55-70% EAR , then they say a 50 gram dose, a more reasonable amount for children to eat, would provide the same amount as the 100 gram dose did?) Even if it can supply 1/2 the daily allowance of vitamin A (which I'm not sure it can from the study you cite), that still does not make it 'safe' to release into the 'wild', or 'better' than natural, easy to grow alternatives as unknown long term side effects have not been studied. It may be better than doing nothing, or even better than natural alternatives, but without long term studies we simply can't know. That's my main point.
$10K a year is not much for a farm to make, most small farms make far more than that, but also need to spend all they make to keep going. That limit seems to say they DO intend to charge most farmers for this seed eventually. If that's $10K a year profit, I'm OK with that.
I would say we should hold up potentially life saving technology until we know the unintended side effects, we should not experiment on the needy (or the public in general) and claim it's in their best interest. We certainly should not do it in secret, as in non-labeled gmo's.
Monsanto is not the only bio-tech company that acts like this, just the most public. Most GMO creating bio-techs are pitbulls about protecting their 'intellectual property', even when it floats onto someone's property without their knowledge.
I stand corrected, she did say that. I missed it. I do not claim they don't have higher yields, I think that's their whole point and I think they do a decent job of producing more. I just don't see that higher yields are worth the possible long term damage and I think more, longer term, double blind studies need to be done by disinterested parties. Long term side effects can take a long time to show up, and with something this new to the food source, it deserves careful consideration, not profit driven usage.
Again, 'golden rice' is an exception if you are correct. My limited experience is with Monsanto corn and soy, which seem to be in a different category. Most GMOs are not made with variety, and ARE made to have a clear adaptive advantage, so I made an assumption that 'golden rice' would be the same. My bad. Even with that though, the genes WILL end up mixing with some other non-gmo rice, making it difficult or impossible to ensure your crop is not gmo of that's what you want. They may not dominate, but if they end up causing cancer in 10 years, and by then 99% of rice is 'contaminated', then what? I just think safety (edit: I meant to say forethought) is the better part of valor, and better that a few go without today than open the possibility of all going without tomorrow when patience and thoughtful examination can prove safety. Of course, I'm not going blind of vitamin A deficiency or starving from lack of corn...so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter.
To a few of your other points, if gmo's are safe, prove it (Monsanto and the like) and do it incontrovertibly and publicly, then we'll all want them. If the argument is that 'stupid hippies have convinced everyone they're bad, so we have to sell them in secret', that argument doesn't hold water in my mind. Monsanto could certainly afford a public service campaign if the science was in, but the LONG term studies aren't done yet.
Teaching someone to grow peppers or other vegi's seems easier than modifying a crop and spreading the seeds, it takes about 5 minutes and adds variety. I think that's better than treating them as un-teachable and experimenting on them.
...and I agree with the scientists in sciencemag, destroying the test fields isn't helpful and answers nothing.

@Orz, out of curiosity, I priced this build myself.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/259dQ

Couldn't find that specific case or the water cooling, but even allowing $2000 (which is ridiculous) for case and cooling, it still comes in under $10k if you build it yourself.

Then add about another $3300 for a 4k monitor (not much point building this thing to run 1080p)

There ya go. 4k gaming for less than $15k.

There's a conversion to electric for all you die-hard Miata enthusiasts-For about 10K you can convert a Miata to full-electric and the range and power is pretty impressive-The conversion should get cheaper as the battery technology advances.

The things' a decent car when it's running (response sucks and it rides like a buckboard) but you have to be Asian or a tiny girl to avoid the sensation of being jettisoned to drive an escape pod.

I am guessing the pleasurable experiences in these cars come form folks who have not owned one over 75K miles and have had to deal with any abrupt power loss in hot climates which NO Miata tech can give any conclusive advice as to how to correct.

The cars' pretty much a turd for performance, all it's appeal is in it's boutique position in the auto world and how fucking adorable is is when the tops' down and a cute chicks' driving it.

I'm 5'3",145lbs and I feel like a football player in uniform in the damn thing.

This viddy is funny, fun!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's really good to see old-fashioned mechanical engineering applied to a hard problem. I'm backing this project - and if you're interested in making access to space cheap, you should too.

Though don't expect to be riding one of these - 10K gravities ... might be a little uncomfortable. (splat)

I've been to Club 33. We had the Fallout team party there. One of the parents of a programmer in the team was a member and got us all in.

It's nice, but certainly not 10k a year nice.

No one seemed overly concerned. Just another $10K blown engine

You can afford...being the prime question here.
Most cars these days (read: not performance cars) are made on the cheap.
Forged connecting rods, and billet valves / cam shafts / high tensile head bolts are not cheap, therfore they dont go into the vast majority of modern engines.

Putting a turbo on your engine alone would vastly increase compression ratios, stressing just about every internal part in the car. The poverty pack econo-cars can not handle any more than about 4-6lb's of boost before things start heating up, warping, and shaking themselves apart violently.

Cost to get things up to spec?

erm....well a good set of H beam forged con-rods can cost you anywhere from 600 upwards (generally upwards...a lot upwards), and thats just the part, not including installation. Getting the valves reworked, vavle springs, cam shaft....thats ~2k+ if youre doing it on the cheap.

Then you need an intercooler to take the heat out of the intake air (as the turbo compresses intake air, and therfore heats it up) so as to keep the economy levels up....and piping to go with it, your looking at another 1k at least.

Then you need an ECU mod, piggy back if you can get away with it, around the 1k figure, otherwise a full standalone can cost upwards of 1.5k.

Then you need to program and tune, upwards again of 1.5k.

To turbo a non-turbo economy engine povery-pack car, you are looking at LEAST 5k+, and thats doing it on mega budget, you wont get any reliability or safety out of it.

Before you even get to put the turbo on, which itself is about 300-1.5k depending on what turbine you purchase, you also need a turbo manifold to redirect all of the exhaust gas into a turbo, and have an outlet pipe that allows waste-gate dumps into your exhaust. So you also need to get your cat-back system redone too, which is about 700-1500 to get it done right.

Doing it right? Start counting from 10k....and keep going.

Doing it right would be to upgrade the breaks (bigger discs, bigger calipers, bigger master cylinder), the suspension (coilovers), and doing some serious chassis strengthening to take the increased loads (front/rear sway bar upgrades, front/rear strut tower bars etc..)

Its not cheap unfortunately