It's custom-built; all the specs are in the Youtube description.

Their specs say the LED runs at 100mw on "high".

1kg falling 1m is roughly 2.5 mwh, so yeah, you'll need either a lot of a rocks or a long fall to run much more than an LED for very long. Even then they can't be losing too much if they can have it running for 20 minutes.

I suppose its also worth remembering that gravity is harnessed on a massive scale for the generation of electricity by dams, so yeah, in some parts of the world its quite possible your computer would be gravity powered.

Monetization of art, which is what they're talking about, isn't a commodity or a service. Seems disingenuous to equate these different things. When you get breakfast, or do a workout, or have an architect design your concept, there's an underlying understanding of what's being offered. At the other end of this, you can pay a designer for something, say a website, and end up with complete dreck and you've lost your money.

Although they get close with the architect, it's still not the same.

Besides, spec only exists because people agree to it.

According to http://jetpackaviation.com/ their next model will be capable of 10,000 ft, 100 mph, and 10+ mins flight time. I'm assuming this model has incrementally lower specs.

Awesome!
I want more info. Flight time, maximum speed, height, distance. They imply at least a 5 min flight time, but I want to see the real specs.
*future

OK....if that's how you want to be about it! ;-)

Still, it seemed to me that that guy (over water) had something much closer to a 'real' hoverboard than these guys did.

There was also that version that worked over any copper surface,
http://videosift.com/video/Real-Life-Hoverboard
which I thought was also way 'better' than this version which needs the embedded mag-lev track to work.

The 'over water' guy just needs to miniaturize (although that would make balancing near impossible) to meet your specs.

Just curious, would you accept a pair of skateboard sized (+-) hover-boots as hoverboards, or would that be just a pair of hoverskates?

Pretty good race. I gave up on the 2014 season about halfway through, and though it's still almost certainly going to be a Mercedes year, I'm pretty hopeful that there will at least be some good races.

If Red Bull ends up a Ferrari customer for 2016 such as rumors were suggesting at one point, and Honda makes their engine competitive within the stupid development rules (or the rules are relaxed), maybe things will be okay by then.

I think the next step is to allow them to to put venturis under the cars using similar regulations to the Champcars in their heyday (no skirts and ride height minimums so it's more like bonus downforce). Even the DW12's today don't suffer dirty air anything like the F1 cars do. Of course, I'm not an aerodynamics expert and I'm sure the F1 designers put a lot of thought into designing their cars specifically so that they screw with the aero of any following car, so who knows how that would work. Also, the Champcars were a lot closer to a spec series than F1 is.

Interesting talk, but I think he puts way too much stock in the idea that going in guns (or rats) blazing is always the more satisfying approach. Back in the old days of Thief many people prided themselves on ghosting through levels and leaving as little evidence of their passing as possible.
I tend to stealth my way through most games were stealth is a viable option and I have never felt cheated because I didn't use some of the more action oriented systems. In Deus Ex I don't think I ever bothered with that social enhancer augment.

Adam Jensen's "I didn't ask for this" attitude actually seems pretty reasonable to me, what little of his life we saw before his accident seemed pretty happy and he didn't seem like the type to sit around thinking "If only I had a cool cyborg body". This seems more like the player is projecting their own insecurities.

And I could easily see a future where prosthetic limbs were more than just for rich people. Technology advances and becomes cheaper, cellphones used to be carried by rich assholes on Wallstreet, now every asshole has one. And not every prosthetic is going to turn you into Superman either, all a cybernetic leg needs to do is allow you to walk and run like a person with a normal leg, leaping tall buildings with a single bound is not a required feature. So most of those repressed cyber citizens are probably not sporting mil-spec hardware.

The manufacturers will be more than happy to ship the artillery. Obama is just not gonna pay for it.

APCs are available to anyone with at least a good credit rating. You can't buy military spec transport, but you can certainly buy BETTER than military spec.

It looks like the Beagleboard Black has similar specs. But it's $55. That's more than a few dollars difference.

I'm thinking if you can get a Linux distro with a GUI, a word program, a MS Paint type program, and support for a USB hub, you can turn it into a full fleged computer experience for $9 (+cost of USB Hub-$7, USB keyboard-$7, & USB mouse-$7). Assuming the user already has a composite capable TV. Oh, and you'd need a video adapter. Haven't priced those yet.

Anything keeping that from happening?

Yes, because someone told you certain specs to seem serious and we must all obey. All hail the standard, for it is good to us.

I agree it seems shady to advertise the 4 GB if only 3.5 GB is full bandwidth... there should have at least been an asterisk on it. Not sure the complaints about the ROPs is as big a deal... I mean if I purchased just off specs I would perhaps be, but really, I look at performance for the dollar. The two articles linked still say they stand by the recommendation due to performance for the dollar, which is the main metric I look at. Then again, if I was running more than 1080p I'd probably be a bit more concerned... That or if the few games that require 4GB to run in ultra wouldn't run in ultra on my card that supposedly has 4GB...

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.

oops, I mis read the original post as an i5 and a lower spec gpu.

You are correct, my apologies.

Low-spec PC? Around the same as XBone/PS4? Get real. This stuff was rendered on an i7-3770 / GTX670. The XBone can barely handle Diablo 3 at 1080p.