Aside from Internet access, drone companies really offer something real to sell. The tech from the drone industry can be applied to smartphones (and vice versa with drones), IoT, research, space exploration (and vice versa), manufacturing, transportation, logistics and such. More than any computer graphics company or LCD nowadays when it comes to new tech.

That's compared to back in the 2001's: pets.com, Boo.com, Broadcast.com, GovWorks.com, InfoSpace, microstrategy, etc...

Now, Google buying up all the robotics companies I would be concerned, as Robotics have been a holy grail for decades. Maybe drones will make that real. It's a wise splurge if anything... but an investment.

Google isn't waiting for D.C. to turn on them; they are lobbying to "manage their relationship" with the Federal government. So is Facebook.

where do you all think these valley companies are getting their funding from? Investments from Wall Street--and that screams shady in itself where gov't loves to inject itself to either skim cash on the deal, fee-by-death, or there's my next job!

You'll need those lobbyists day one once you take Wall Street cash.

And the FAA reinstated their guidelines soon after and is appealing. So we're back to a month ago.

There's something about teaching vs 'doing'.

Yes, you can teach anyone (a coal miner) to code, but will be do it well and will he like doing it? Realistically (from my experience in training folks to code) no on the latter two cases.

Guys, money is free speech.

And LIRC bribery usually involves talking to someone first....

It's not there are less things to discover, but the reason NatGeo exists. As a Fox property, it need to help the bottom line: hence, sensational science is what they are looking for.

In this world of 10sec blog explanations of DNA formation, 1min youtube videos describing string theory and watered down Odyssey's (I'm talking to you Cosmos, Seth and Neil). There are more science discoveries out there... only if reporters take a little more time than glancing at their smart phone to write up the next science story based on some VC's press release of some cool silicon valley startup using science.

Also, he's the only guy that:
a. does the liberal/liberation spin that IS silicon valley
b. actually talks about tech like DRONES, along with BEARS.
c. has writers that are very, very tech savvy, much like the Simpsons and Futurama
d. Michael Stipe and Patrick Steward as continuing guests. That is /.... but Need I say more?

A pilot here as well. This article and incident has so much fail in it. There's NO information about the incident aside from the person being injured.

Wifi flying? Only the AR.Drone has it.

All the photos show a DJI flaming wheel 550 hex. It likely runs a NAZA or ACE system. Likely a NAZAv2 as the camera looks like a GoPro and every article mentions iPhone(!). NAZAs only use WiFi for camera and ground station supervisory, not actual flying. It's is a man in the loop system. The pilot still has control via a 2.4Ghz narrowband radio (like a spektrum, FrSky, etc...). NAZA allows you to hit a button (goto waypoint) on the iphone, and it autonomously flies BUT allows user override with the r/c sticks. And the wifi portion only allows 2-3 functions: Land, goto Home, or goto waypoint aside from live video.

When it comes to hacking, there's so much fail here. The guy's obviously is a aerial photographer, NOT a drone user. You can't hack the 2.4 narrowband--it's binded, the iPhone wifi? sure you can hack that, but it's for live video and a couple of 'safe' commands. This pilot clearly lost control.

Now look at the reality of the situation: you're 25 feet above a crowd (w/cellphones at 2.4 or 868Mhz), Urban canyon WiFi access points, TV crew wireless mics (400, 5.8 & 2.4), and running a system that has a iphone (2.4 and 868), narrowband radio (2.4), and bluetooth running. All basically in the palm of your hand. You're asking for RF interference... and that's likely the cause. Of course, the pilot likely did not set up failsafe features--cause it's usually off by default and ignored by users (much like turning on your firewall or javascript...). FAIL for a professional.

Folks, let this story brew--likely the truth will come out as currently everyone is calling the 'OMG the sky if falling', literally. Since the pilot does not have a CAA permit/license shows the lack of knowledge of his tools. As well as the event host for hiring him.

Nice, MEMS, compasses, RF, batteries, inductive charging (in today's phone) and memory.

Mix that with strong electromagnets and you will like have a Ara that could just a simple 5" LCD monitor (cause nothing else will work) once the magnets turn on.

Webdevs did not develop this--would even work in the 1st place if so.

I'm sure Nest had their hardware engineers, aka "Makers", design this. Cause the integration between the web-enabled part and critical R/T hardware is [now] obviously terrible. Should have had some real h/w engineers design this.

Sure puts a black eye on them considering all the hoopla last month w/Google buying them out.

Actually, it's welcome to the silicon valley, venture capital backed, google always in beta Internet of Things.

Honestly, if Honeywell or some other non-SV-VC-Google-Facebook-Cisco-Apple company released something similar, the turn out would be more like: the UI crash again, but the basic function (detecting a fire) still works fine.

Yep, and likely was NSA research, which is a typical exploration into the subject... much like any research university.

It's when the politicians and generals (aka customers) decide to take research out of R&D and into production is when people cry foul. ThinThread-TT (sure the agency doesn't use thinthread, but likely uses a variant of its design in today's system, regardless of what TT creators say) is a great example.

Another great example is SE-Linux.

Helium mixes with any bladder material out there today. Sure low quality helium will work, but it needs to be 100% helium on the inside--that will be a nightmare to manage.

Also the carbon footprint to mine all that helium and make all that high tech cable more or less than the power it puts out over a year? My guess it it's actually inefficient. Mind that the weather issues this thing screams out (i.e. can be used in 1% of the world's normal conditions).

Cool concept? Yes. Looks cool? Yep. VC hyped holy grail? MIT? Yep. Yep. Beneficial? Likely not. Costs? Likely $$$ in the O&M.

What's easier and cheaper and more robust to maintain: a building structure, boat or a airplane/aerial? In that order... and that's why we have windmill structures.

hacking MBA buzzwords and littering a bunch of sound bites specifically in SV speak.

Has she interviewed any of these CEOs for her analysis or reading someone else's bios? Doesn't look like and 1/2 the article is about her.

Better?

She just came up with a Web 2.0 presentation... mind that using motivational images.