Yeah, but they are looking for funding, so someone is going to pony up. I watched the video. Most of what they show is a Hubsan FPV quad that you can get through places like Banggood it uses a spreadspectrum 5.4 system to broadcast the video and a 2.4 system for control, but it does not have any autonomous capabilities. Hubsan makes some of the best stuff out there and we work very closely with them. The wrist thing is cludgey, and while it conveys the idea (You can see the needed twist I was talking about), it wont get them anywhere near their presented final design. Wifi would be an option, but it would require a wifi hotspot be built into the quad. I know we aren't talking about components that require a bunch of power, but we are talking about small batteries, so every mV counts. Especially for something that is wearable.
Now the Hexo+ is very much like the Airdog. Both seem very viable and are using existing technologies. My only concern about either is what do they do about object avoidance and low battery response. In either situation you can wind up losing the vehicle or injuring someone. Most higher end quadcopters have the ability to Return To Home (RTH) which is great since the pilot is in a stationary position, but put a pilot on the move and things get weird. If you are out surfing and the quad gets a low battery warning due to either a battery failure or having been waiting for 30 minutes for you to catch a wave, where does it go? It could go back to the take-off position, but if you drifted from there then it will need to calculate that distance and make sure it can get back. Salt water and electronics don't play well together. If you take your quad with you for a ride on a skateboard down the boardwalk, how do you make sure it doesn't hit a light post or a tree while it is zipping after you? You could fly at a higher altitude, but the zoom lens on the camera may not be enough. Hexo+ has a video of the founder riding a skateboard while the quad films. Notice that he stops short of going into the wooded area. I wonder why?
There are issues, but at least in both cases I think they are starting from proven technologies and have footprints that are achievable.

The phone screen has those thumb "joystick" dots so I'd say no, not autonomous.

Probably doesn't even have a prototype.

My understanding is that it's autonomous. You point it away from you and it flies a fixed path out and back.

Is it autonomous, or do you need a 'camera man' driving it with a cell phone? If it does all that by itself....AMAZING! If it's just an RC camera, still good, but not as good.

There was a stipulation when the Brits handed HK back to the Chinese that it remain highly autonomous for 50yrs. Does Beijing picking state approved candidates for HK not somewhat undermine this agreement?

Not that I am suggesting that the protests by the HKers is about an agreement made with Britain, just that I wonder if this is going to damage China-UK relations.

The witnesses? The only witness that vaguely supports this that I've seen is an anonymous witness cited in the Daily Caller. Not credible journalism even by USA standards. The known witnesses are Dorian Johnson (altercation at the car, shooting as he ran away, he got hit, turned around put his hands up and stumbled forwards before the shooting began again), James McKnight (more or less the same as Johnson), Michael Brady (altercation at car, shooting, then as Brown was halfway towards falling to the ground more shots), Piaget Crenshaw (shots fired as he ran away with hands up, turned with hands up, more firing). Those accounts aren't too far from the Police account really. Is it reasonable to conclude deadly force is required in the timeframe of the shooting? What does police protocol say? One step? Two? When can you be sure it's not charging but belligerence, drunkenness, or injury? I'm sure America are the experts in these cases by now and have explicit and clear guidelines for semi-autonomous itinerant armed police officers and when they can and cannot open fire. Surely it isn't just 'if you harbour any fear, kill or otherwise incapacitate the citizen you are trying to apprehend'?

There is also TheePharoah who tweeted it from the scene and said ' JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG....no reason! He was running!', but you know, its not clear he can provide further useful information assuming he was interviewed.

If you wondered what caused all the hiccups on the internet yesterday, may I direct you straight towards Verizon.

Through some fuckup, some of their autonomous systems pushed ~10-15k new routes into the routing table, pushing the total to about 510-515k on average.

Wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for old-ass Cisco routers which, in default configuration, only have enough memory alloted to their IPv4 routing table to handle 512k entries.

There's going to be an interesting transition period from self driving cars that must have a competent driver that can take over, to self driving cars that are legally autonomous (i.e. doesn't need human oversight).

The ultimate end IMHO, is roads that only allowing AI vehicles. Think about it, computers are much faster than humans. if you had a road where all the cars were networked, you could have high speed traffic with perfect reaction times and no human error. At that point, allowing a human driver would be dangerous.

I've been wondering about autonomous vehicles... mostly about the cases that may come up. Like who would be liable if one causes damage, injury, or death? Because if the manufacturer is going to be liable, companies will likely be slow to bring these to market.

From the article:
For Barnes, the device needed to be able to take cues from the human body. The lab designed a prosthesis that uses a technique called electromyography to pick up on electrical signals in the upper arm muscles. By tensing his biceps, Barnes controls a small motor that changes how tightly the prosthetic arm grips the drumstick and how quickly it moves, vital skills for a drummer.

The researchers then added another layer of complexity: a second, autonomous drumstick on the robot arm (see photo). This second stick, controlled via its own motor, uses a microphone and an accelerometer to sense the rhythm Barnes is playing, as well as music from any nearby musicians. An algorithm then produces a new beat with a complementary rhythm and melody, modelled on the music of jazz greats like John Coltrane and Thelonious Monk.

With this extra artificial intelligence, human and machine combine to make Barnes a kind of "superhuman drummer", Weinberg says.

Oh give them more credit : ) the video camera is obviously one of those which looks exactly like a point and shoot camera, as a result, the ingrained response to tens of years of evolution is taking place, a camera is pointing at them, the picture isn't taken yet, so their body has autonomically frozen in place. Even after a future apocalypse, new generations who have never seen a camera will still feel the pull to standstill whenever someone picks up something and holds it to their eye.

Wiki snoopage purports that the Brit boat the Victoria was almost taken-out by some IRA bombs planted on-board during construction, one of which detonated and caused enough damage to delay her commission a few years. OH, and it's got one of those Terminator/Raytheon Phalanx robots on the deck, the autonomous, death from below incoming sky-turd zapper

But the decision can never be put into the hands of a robot to begin with. It’s always, always, always going to be in the hands of a human no matter how complex the mechanism (including semi-autonomous drones).

in short - yes. though the X-47B is unmanned, it is not a drone. instead, it’s an autonomous aerial vehicle, which means that it flies missions according to pre-programmed instructions rather than being under constant control by a ground-based pilot. this first-ever arrested landing was the highlight of three months of shore-based carrier testing, which included precision approaches, touch-and-go landings, and precision landings

Was it landing autonomously?