The up votes on this kinda leave me flabberghast. The idea behind wifi hotspot balloons is quite old now, and have already been put into practice. How is this any different? What hardware are they using? NONE of this is covered, it is simply a PR video and completely pointless to anyone who actually cares about it.

To me, the problem reduces to this:
1) Brain is the hardware
2) Current charge of neurons is the software that we like to call consciousness.

Consciousness, just like software, is intangible. This video about cells didn't bother to distinguish the "who" from the "what" when it talks about "us".

There are established fields in ontology and epistemology that address this very problem better than the "cells" argument. For anyone interested, I'd start here first.

hmmm. from a googled website...

SO HOW CAN WE TELL IF IT'S REALLY GOLD?
These steps can help you determine if your gold is real, and possibly what the true purity is. There are many suggested ways to test gold, and these are some of the most common:
Step 1:
Rub the piece of jewelry across a piece of unglazed porcelain tile. It should not make a black streak. If it does then it is pyrite.If the streak is golden yellow then it is gold. Unglazed porcelain tile can be found at a hardware store.

Step 2:
Use the Moh's scale to determine the hardness of the metal. Gold has a hardness of about 2.5 to 3 on the Moh's scale. Glass on the other hand has a hardness of 5.5 on the same scale. Try scratching glass with the piece of gold. If it scratches the glass, it is definitely not gold, or is mixed with other metals and the purity is very low.

Step 3:
Hold a magnet near the piece of gold. If the magnet attracts the gold piece, then there are other metals mixed in the gold. This is not pure gold.

Step 4:
Purchase hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid, rubber gloves, and protective eyewear from a hardware store. Use something like a small piece of glass to drop a very small amount of acid onto the gold. If the gold begins to dissolve, then there is some other type of metal mixed with the gold and it is not pure.

All you mac people are so snowed or blind or just desperately trying to justify your money being wasted on a inferior product.

any thing can be done faster on a proper pc (proper meaning it uses the latest processor memory ssd and graphics card)

but the trouble comes from people when they get on pc they get cheap and expect to do their video editing in virtual dub (not knocking vdub by the way)

or try and find some other video tool they can use for free . they wont buy a proper video editing software package nor will they buy proper software tools for their jobs . they try and use free alternatives or try and pirate the software.

but when they use mac they by the video editing software and the tools they need .

it is such bs, macs are weaker hardware weaker operating system and a weaker overall tool . but since people have invested so much money into them they unjustly justify there purchases by derailing the pc as a lesser platform.

when it is not true.

pcs, can have dedicated storage that outperforms and also stores more than any mac can dream of .

pcs can be all self contained no need for plethora of external drives hanging form 4 may be 3 or is it 2? soon to become one port hanging off your mac in a needless chain of wires.

pcs can have higher resolution and better monitors better user input, better configuration options, and backwards and forward compatibility with previous and next gen software.

but no, mac users over shadow this with the base argument that their $1500 mac is some how better than the $300 desktop they love comparing to .

but when it becomes price point vs hardware mac users have no ground to stand on as they are using , even in their newest machines 3+ year old hard ware and even on a refresh they are already 1 year behind in technology.

mac is nothing more than a placebo for those who failed at using windows computers .

they constantly compare a custom 1500 dollar computer with a locked in user experience to a 300 dollar walmart special with a completely open user experience and lament the windows based product as inferior.

when in actuality it is the mac that is the inferior product.

did you know that your $2000++ mac has a 5400 rpm hardrive in it configured to work with 128gb ssd in such a way that if either of the two fail your entire data set is trashed?

yeah ... thats a well built product .

intellisensitive.com is available to register...

Amazing they would claim that Windows 2000 is better at running a web server than Solaris.

And Compaq hardware? We know where that went.

There was an attempt at making completely open source (hardware and software) voting machines, but it stalled a while ago. http://openvoting.org/ for more info.

Companies like Diebold are quite scary.

Also, here's what EVMs look like in the worlds largest democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_voting_machines

Much simpler than all these full-PC touchscreen systems in US, but still possible to tamper with...

Yeah, I really can't wait for that.
There's no good outcome for her for this that I can see....either she said things she doesn't want public, or she used military grade crowd control hardware against reporters (and an innocent neighborhood) for no reason at all.
That's not a good look.

Thanks -- that was nice and definitely displayed the hardware much better than trying to catch glimpses of it when he's playing with the band. I think it is a bit wider neck than most US-made 6 strings that I've seen, *and* he has a bit smaller hands. Combination makes it look giant!

He's a really skilled player though -- I don't think I'll ever be anywhere near that good at tapping. Very melodic and pleasant.

Uh, not really. Fetuses start out as both male and female with both ovaries and testes, and then usually reabsorb the un-required hardware later.

That is all well and good, but the F35 is not just a sniper. It's a multi-role aircraft that needs to be an interceptor, a bomber, and a close ground support plane. You can be a 'sniper' and hide long range in interceptor mode, but bombing and close ground support are not going to be as kind to a plane that relies completely on stealth to overcome it's shortcomings in maneuverability, etc.

Additionally, the sheer cost of the vehicle is going to make it prohibitive for our allies to purchase it, meaning that in NATO combat groups, we will have it and our allies won't. It also means that we can't offset the trillion dollar development cost in ally purchases. Of course, it is likely that we won't even try to export it for the risk of having the stealth breached. We didn't export the F22 for similar reasons and it is dead now.

The simple fact is that we have sunk a ton of money into a pit and for little return. There are still huge long term delays in Russian and Chinese stealth programs, so just like the F22, this plane is going to come into production with no real enemies to fight against. Are we going to risk sending these vs last gen or earlier systems when our older planes are still more advanced than those and cost far less?

We aren't going to stop making this plane, we've gone too far. But it is going to be just as much of a waste as the F22 and probably more of a debacle when the enemy does come up with hardware capable of defeating it's stealth capabilities. Once that happens, we have a plane that is worse than the previous generation facing enemies more than capable of taking it out of the sky.

Good summation of how the consoles had to learn the hard way about hardware going obsolete.

You forgot "Made in China" not a label to inspire confidence. If it were made in Germany, I'm sure a lot more people would believe in the safety features, but honestly, I think the reason it's NOT made in Germany is that it's inherently impossible to design such a vehicle to actually be safe.

1 blade breaks (bird strike?) 1 motor fails, ANYTHING goes wrong with the software or hardware, structural failures, hell, even the passenger shifting rapidly in their seat could cause this thing to fall out of the air like a brick.

They seem to think if they repeat "absolute safety by design" often enough somebody will believe it, but the video does absolutely nothing to show what they've done to actually make the thing safe.

I have a new tag line for them:

"Absolutely safe, just like Chinese-made hoverboards!"

Somewhat related: Toxic “Reform” Law Will Gut State Rules on Dangerous Chemicals

The issue in a single quote:

The Senate bill prohibits states from acting on chemicals that the EPA deems “high priority” while the agency is evaluating them. But the agency’s investigations can go on for years and even decades before it takes action. Back in 2002, for instance, the EPA initiated a high-priority review of PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon and hundreds of other products. Probable links between the chemical and six diseases have been found in the intervening years, and contamination is now known to be widespread, yet the agency has not regulated it.

The EPA has been investigating the safety of some of the flame retardants that would be banned by the Washington state bill for more than 25 years. And the agency has spent at least 30 years looking at the safety of methylene chloride, which is still widely available in hardware stores though its fumes have been killing people since at least the 1940s.

As was mentioned above, the cost of the fuel is a non-starter. Currently SpaceX uses a Kerosene / Liquid Oxygen fuel mix.

After the anomaly (the space industries way of saying accident) in June SpaceX did a complete vehicle review. They are now using a more advanced technique to cool the LOX which means for a denser LOX liquid in their tanks, which ultimately means they have more oxidizer on board for their flights now.

Coupled with the LOX improvements they have made upgrades to the engines which means 30% greater efficiency. Basically the horsepower per engine has increased.

This means they can get their payloads to orbit plus have more then enough fuel left over in stage 1 to return it to land.

The greatest efficiency comes from returning the stage(s) and then reusing them in future launches (not proven yet). ALL launchers (u.s, soviet, indian, ESA, Japan, etc) ditch ALL of their hardware into the ocean when getting payload to orbit. Bye, bye multi million dollars worth of engines and hardware.

If SpaceX can turn that scenario on its head and reuse those stages and MORE importantly the engines they will cut their costs per launch by a substantial amount. Ultimately that means cheaper per pound cost to get material into orbit.

All of the media uses the word "explosion" when describing the June anomaly which is funny because there was never an ignition of onboard fuels.

The LOX tanks have smaller Helium tanks inside them. The helium is released during launch. The helium rises in the LOX quickly, expands and pressurizes the tank to ensure the LOX is "squeezed" into the pipes in order to keep up with the turbo pumps.

One of the struts holding a helium tank inside the LOX tank failed. The helium tank shot up and blew threw the top of the LOX tank and took a good part of the top of the stack off. The engines actually fired for a few seconds after the anomaly and then sputtered out. The rest of the vehicle at this point is still fairly intact.

Without proper structural integrity the vehicle started to veer off course, dynamic pressures built up and the vehicle was essentially ripped apart by those forces.

At 3:20 the Helium tank rips off its struts. At 3:27 the remainder of the vehicle disintegrates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNymhcTtSQ

SpaceX mentioned that in June, the dragon capsule continued to relay telemetry until it smacked into the ocean. If the Dragon had better software onboard it would have detected the anomaly and recovered with chutes. Elon said that software would be active on Dragons from now on.

Lol, thanks for the history lesson. Don't know why you'd think I'd lie, but whatever.

You're pretty much confirming exactly my point, in the past his games require massive hardware. When you see a nice fluid video, take it with a grain of salt.

I'm glad that you know how he operates as well, but my original comment was for people who don't know that and for whom it probably won't be 'expected' as most developers these days like to target good performance on average hardware.