what is your point. Cochlear implants or hearing aides, depending on the person, it only returns a percentage of hearing, and it still may be very difficult and frustrating for a hearing impaired person to follow along a movie without captions. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be forced to remove non-captioned movies (a lot of older movies were not captioned in the first place). But I think if at all possible, if the original content they have had subtitles, they should provide them. Yet there is a difference between closed captions and subtitles. Take Apple TV for example, it has the option to enable either subtitles or closed captions. (I watch netflix on the apple tv). If you rent a movie on the apple TV, it does serve up the closed captions, but Netflix will only do the subtitles, even if the original content had CC as well. Licensing issues aside, I believe its just a technical aspect that Netflix didn't bother to spend time on.

Not to mention that the aide has to be customized for your hearing loss. I couldn't purchase one ready to go. They are tuned to counteract the loss that you have.

If systems oriented to our state were available, it doesn't really provide as much opportunity for growth. If its always oriented to what we know and want, it wouldn't suggest alternatives to explore. Besides, when I play a game, I usually start out stressed, in order to releive that stress. You wouldn't want your initial state to be used. The adrenaline from playing is what actually gets me pumped.

Please wait.. I can't load your text editor yet because I'm trying to load the ads up that you must view as part of the overall "user experience"

We would probably spend more on energy to charge the battery than we are spending on gasoline today. And if the grid energy isn't green to begin with, I don't see how it really got us anywhere.

I think its over generalizing to depict extreme examples of Christianity that you learned about in the media. Irregardless of the flamewar in this thread, lets return to the topic at hand. Its the use of technology in congregation. While I believe we all have a right to worship how we see fit (and if you choose not to, that's your choice) lets put this in another context. If you were in an assembled group of people for anything, be it a conference, some work related function, or even church, do you not think that technology has the ability to detract the attention span? Here you are with the boss, leader, or pastor presenting some sales pitch, training or sermon. While technology could be great at delivering visual aides and helping you reference things, it can also hinder your ability because you are shifting your attention and have the capability to become distracted. I can see some advantage in using technology to supplement a teaching, but I feel like you need balance to make that human connection.

I would agree. I work with some technical aspects of my church and while I want to add some accessibility enhancements, I don't want to detract from the service. You don't want to turn people's focus from the speaker to a device. That said, it would be nice to have features for those with disabilities, be able to share notes, and maybe eventually be able to get a transcript that you can review later (helps reinforce things, especially if you have some hearing/vision/language impairment).

I'm sure it won't be legal, but maybe a mini powered glider that can unfold in flight (or from like a flare gun or something). Mounting cameras would be tricky, but basically thinking it can launch and then unfold at the peak and then use some minimal sensors and evasion while tracking a base point (you). So it can glide and take footage, but it maneuvers towards a fixed point. Won't cover the distance you want. The only way to get your distance is to somehow boost the RC signal and use a larger fuel tank than normal, but where you can still handle the weight, All this is neigh impossible to do without a lot of expense and testing, and will be on the edge of legal.

The world does not care about those limits, but at least you can test against trivial cases. You may need to tweak it in the field to fit the "real world" limits, but using the simulator should get you closer to a working model. Otherwise you are wasting money on fuel, possible crashes, and data processing. There's many steps that need to be tested before hitting the real world tests to make a complete system capable.

And like small aircraft, a majority of crashes will be due to miscalculating the amount of fuel needed.