Since you don't like the quality of Foscam, how about an old Android phone? I own a Foscam and had no problems with the quality, so I assume you want a higher resolution. Any old or cheap Android phone will likely have a high enough resolution. Combine that with something like autocam and write a small script that ftps the picture (have never tried autocam so I'm not sure if it is OK...). The phone will have wifi etc. all build in. You might needs some creativity to mount it to a wall.

I think the aliens would be to busy laughing at the lasers to start hating us.

Indeed, and the few that actually do (or did) get it, love(d) it!

Well that is until they have a base on Mars of course...

all your base are belong to us..

hehehe

Free? Is it April 1 already. Damn time flies

This maybe a potential game changer for Telcos/ISPs. There is still a lot of money made in this business.

If SpaceX internet is capable of high bandwidth, no data-limit or a reasonable limit, not too crappy latency and allows me to use it everywhere, then it maybe very interesting.
Except for gaming, this offers what most people need AND you can take it with you (if the equipment to connect is reasonably mobile)!

If I can get an internet connection, that I can 'take with me' on my holidays abroad, which allows me to watch netflix and other IP TV, there is hardly a reason left for me to keep my cable subscription.

Not to mention what this will do for countries where internet access is highly monitored or otherwise hardly available. I'm guessing China is not too thrilled about this initiative.

The latency issue is an issue which will largely solve itself if the latency is not too bad. It can be worked around for most purposes. Maybe not for gaming, but the big websites will quickly adapt.
If I can choose nearly similar options, where one has a bit worse latency, but is available for me wherever I go...
Some time ago I checked the latency of websites I visit a lot. My cable connection has low latency, but obviously there many websites have high latency regardless as they are hosted on a different continent.
I'm sure the latency you get from GEO (> 240ms) is really changing your experience a bit too much. But the latency of LEO is about 40ms (says Wikipedia). That seems a lot, but if I were to visit a website on a different continent over the proposed network, some of that would be mitigated since the signal would travel via this network as well in stead of over multiple routers and connections. That part may be faster. So my overall experience may not be worse. Only sites hosted close by would have a significantly better performance.

A lot depends on the equipment needed to connect. If it is reasonably mobile they could also partner with a lot of companies, such as Amazon (whispernet globally and just one party to deal with), Netflix (Netflix boxes that don't require your own connection) etc.

If they manage to really compete, 10 billion USD is nothing. Local ISPs get bought for that amount.

There are a lot of ifs. But if they offer high bandwidth with high data limits for a competing price, this will mean for a lot of ISPs that there is a new player in town. And one that is global. If he were to sell shares in this initiative, I'd buy some.

Indeed if Elon Musk connects a planet full of them to our internet, we're really fscked .....

Honest question, I'm no rocket scientist so I really don't know: Since they seem to be able to hit the mark, why not just put a big net on the drone ship to 'catch' it rather than try to land it on legs?

simple resolution, RTFA before commenting. Not sure how long it will last....

Surprisingly frank? Sony is just not that good at covering things up these days....

Since there is wifi but only in specific rooms, maybe this will work:
http://www.engeniustech.com/in...

I have an older version of one of these and mounted a bigger antenna on this. On Holidays I take this along and receive wifi points 2 miles away. Possibly she could receive the available wifi.

Mine works well in both Windows and Linux, don't know about the newer ones

Actually I have been in sales for years.
The point is however, in my view it really is a positive thing and it is their job to make that clear and actually use this. If they do it right you can show that it is positive.

Any _good_ sales or marketing team should be able to turn it around and show that this is actually a good thing and helps in getting more stable production software.

First off, I would love it if people took unit testing more seriously and automated it! In my view that helps greatly for getting robust software. However, not for all tests automating is the answer. Especially when you get to acceptance testing (where we validate, rather than verify) or when you do integration testing for systems that communicate with other systems it is not a silver bullet. Aside from feasibility, as automating is time consuming, there are more drawbacks. Automating all tests means assuming that you can anticipate everything that can be wrong and even anticipate every test that should be done just based on the specs. Exactly the context driven testers (such as James Bach and Michael Bolton) believe you can't, we humans are not 'wired' that way. In fact they even are of the opinion (as am I) that the best testing is done by people that design tests to a great deal as you go while testing as long as these are skilled people that understand how the software should work.

Rigorously testing software via automated tests, please do. But in my view there should always still be people that test and see for themselves. The automated tests can and will miss things that are plain obvious to human testers.