That is disconcerting. I understood they were not efficient, but to be that much worse than normal industry is almost criminal, no matter the reason.

Designing for the future was also my point. Since it seems we have already gotten to a point where lost lives and aircraft are intolerable, we should design cheaper, better performing drones to remove those issues, not continue with older insanely expensive models already obsolete for the most part before deployment...IMO.
I do understand the 'farming out' of contract work, what I was talking about is intentionally spreading the work to all states in order to gain congressional backing, not using the best/cheapest manufacturer. I have no solution, just griping. ;-)
I think we should go (back?) to allowing private companies to produce prototypes to compare that meet requested/required criteria instead of a design competition. Then at least the only issues would be manufacturing specs and costs of mass production, not making it work at all decades and billions (trillions?) down the road....but I'm just a layman looking from the outside.

From yt description:

This is a semester project in mechatronic control systems at SJSU.

The 6 DOF platform is a proof-of-concept prototype that we created for our senior project (motion simulator). Here, we are using 2 axes of the platform as the output from a PID controller that uses a resistive touch panel mounted on the platform as input. All processing is being done on an Arduino Uno that is controlling 6 R/C servo motors.

For more information about this project or our senior project, please visit our webpage at http://www.fullmotiondynamics.com

From the interwebs:
"Nixie isn’t going to be on this Christmas’ shopping list and is simply a concept at this stage."
and
"The Nixie prototype, as it is now, looks like it could break at a moment’s notice, and resembles more a school science project than the next big wearable."
and
"Nixie is currently in prototype stage and as an idea, was born only ten days before the deadline for the competition. But despite having a lot of work to do, the team's pitch convinced the judges not only that the product is brilliant, but that the team has a viable business plan and can make the product, quite literally, take off. Prize money will be used for improving the propellers, motors and object navigation, as well as miniaturisation of the whole product."

I still think Intel got conned.

What this tells me is that everybody sees potential but that what they showed in the video was pure concept design. They have a very long road ahead of them still. My key issues are and remain:
Getting the booms to bend around the wrist so as to bring the motor pods back together.
Fitting the electronics into a format that will fit onto a wrist.
Maintain an acceptable level of performance for an acceptable level of time.

Funny thing is that they mention all of the things I've commented on:
Propellers, miniaturization, and navigation.

I would add form factor and battery life. But Props will be a key issue as getting efficient props at this size is very difficult and maintain tolerances in production.

These competitions never give out cash prizes for theory, they only pay off for actual working prototypes. Otherwise SpaceX would be a movie, as would Deepflight and whatever they called the solar plane...along with dozens of other technologies that have come from these competitions. They just don't pay off on these competitions unless you can PROVE you solved the problems (known AND unknown) and MADE at least one prototype that works.
Intel is no dummy. They know full well you can use their own product to create a video showing anything you wish, so they would NOT be 'conned' out of $500000 with a video. That's a silly thing to say.
I'll come back and tell you that you seem to be wrong today. :-)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, you may be right it will take 5 years to make them cheap and durable enough to sell them.

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

Probably doesn't even have a prototype.

It was built in the 1960s, but the actual SR-71 design and prototyping of some of the new concepts were done in the 50's.

Here's one mention of it: http://www.space.com/16666-sr-71-blackbird.html

Can't wait for October when we get to start working on our Oculus prototype.. It's gonna be freaking phenomenon.

@lantern53

Since it is glaringly apparent you don't know what a straw man argument is, here's the definition from Wikipedia:

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Your very first comment in this thread was a straw man argument. To paraphrase, you argued that the idea of everyone who has the same job title must receive the exact same amount of pay (without regard to how much work they actually do) is stupid . Which it is.

Except (as has been pointed out to you several times) that's not what this video is saying.

That's CLASSIC straw man. Wikipedia could use your comment as as a prototypical example of the straw man fallacy.

Now, let's talk about trolling...

Several times on this comment thread people have shown how your arguments are flawed (strawman, not based on evidence, etc.). Instead of conceding, you resort to ad hominem attacks--or to use the more common phrase: insults.

It would seem then that your purpose in this thread is not to have a meaningful discussion with people but simply to enrage them instead.

That is, by very definition, trolling.

I'm curious what your endgame here is. Keep insulting people until they stop replying? Convince everyone how dumb they are because they don't agree with you (despite the fact you haven't provided any evidence for why they should agree with you)? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish?

Hey, more people = more Videos to sift and more Sifters !!!

WIN ! WIN !

VideoSift, a prototype for a future without Scarcity.

I tried to find the price and found this.

"The price is actually undetermined—Fuji, our manufacturing partner will make that call once the final bike is chosen. The cost of the prototype is unfortunately no help for an estimation given every part is custom made—at this point it’s a stunning piece of art. Mass production will knock into the reality of MSRP."

Soo 4 grand.

I'm not sure how much credence I can give the wiki page...I note it claims things that are obviously wrong, like "the design does not have a long lifespan when compared to other engine designs due to large numbers of moving parts" while in fact this motor has far fewer moving parts than normal motors. It did make some good points, like the first one that occurred to me about friction, but also made some bad points such as claiming 'mechanical complexity' as a drawback, while in fact it seems far more simple than normal motors.
"extra complicated machined parts" also exist in normal motors, and can be made fairly cheaply and easily in bulk.
Excess use of oil is an issue, but one they should be able to solve with proper machining and materials. Low RPM is fine for many applications, like a generator, so long as it's efficient it's fine and might even be better. Since you get high torque at low RPM with this design, low RPM seems to be ideal.
They claimed it had comparable horsepower to the same displacement normal motors in the prototype...if true, that point is moot.
Actually, there seems to be less moving mass in this motor, consider the mass of the crank shaft and counterbalances, connecting rods and pistons, the camshaft, rods, lifters, rockers, and valves. This motor only had a compact 'crank' and the connecting rods and pistons, and the output shaft. That's less actually moving to my eye.
The 'potential for explosion' was claimed on Wiki to be a design flaw of the case thickness around the 'crank', which could easily be thickened if it doesn't have to fit inside a torpedo....potential removed.
I'm not saying it's perfect, or necessarily even feasible, but it does seem to have more going for it than you give it credit for and is worth following it's progress to me.

"In the 1990s, the U.S. Army decided it could not afford to continue developing complicated, maintenance-heavy vehicles for this purpose. The Grizzly program was canceled in 2001. The prototype developed never made it to the production lines."

THIS is why we "liberals" don't like so-called success. This. Success for what? So we can call human life a trifle? We can't afford to develop appropriate life-saving vehicles, and yet we have so much wealth in this godforsaken country.

It's godforsaken, because your Christ did NOT advocate material success. He cared for the tired and the hungry. Guardians of Democracy? More like a bunch of A-holes...

At least the military had an answer. I like the military, but I hate our "successful" American Judas'. Selling out their fake Jesus eeeeeevery freaking day. And for what? I hope His love doesn't buy them past the pearly gates because THAT would be a tragedy. I'll see you all in hell.

The pump would still be there. It's just the two vavles that would be replaced. The actual piston would be (almost) the same in it's form and function.

So there would be no moving parts in the VALVES. The pump would still be a major, important moving part that would need to be serviced. But you are eliminating two points of very common failure with tesla's design.

If they were able to produce a prototype valve that was 5x to 10x the size of the one in the video, I might be interested in buying...

That is really really really cool. Videos do need audio though.

Google Project Ara - Modular Smartphone Prototype has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Don't quote me, but I'm fairly certain Uzis weren't produced until at least the 1300s, So there is little possibility the Viking woman would have one.

Unless, of course, she procured a pre-beta prototype.