Open up your mind and say, ahh...

This article is part of our ongoing series about entrepreneurs who you’ll be hearing more about in the future, including Cory Kidd, Mary Waldner, and Ted Roden.

Bot Vid: Quadrotor. James Quadrotor.

The University of Pennsylvania’s GRASP lab has done it again–another quadrotor video that’ll make you gasp. This time the team has taught a swarm of quadrotors to play the James Bond theme tune on a selection of musical instruments. It’s astonishing, and even comes with its own special Bond effect light show. On a more serious note, the swarm precision here demonstrates how hugely complex tasks could be performed by groups of these machines. And the drum-tapping bot is a hint at how quadrotors may find a use performing repairs or clean-up jobs on the outside of structures like skyscrapers.

The placebo effect isn’t a lie. In fact, if you believe something is going to help you get better, it may very well do just that.

This very same effect works with stereo equipment, wine, politicians… just about everything where our belief intersects with reality.

You can believe that Ford is better than Chevy, that California reds are better than French ones and that your particular tribe is right (and that everyone else is wrong.)

Marketers love the placebo effect because it opens the door to stories and fables and word of mouth and varied perceptions. It gives marketers room to sell more than price and features. The first cultural byproduct this benefit creates is the notion that everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, and it’s rude to question it.

The second, is a real problem, though. If you spend enough time experiencing your own take on reality, you come to believe that what works for you might actually be a universal truth. Marketing plus psychology might equal science, it seems.

For the placebo to work, you have to believe it, but sometimes believing requires suspension of your connection with verifiable fact.

When that happens, we might believe that we’re entitled to believe things that conflict with demonstrable truth and an understanding of reality. With enough internal spin, you can believe that the moon walk was a fake, that levitation is possible and that the world is only 6,000 years old. You are welcome to believe that aqua metals will improve your sports performance and that z-rays will cure your arthritis, but only until it collides with things that are actually true. Placebos are a good thing, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but they’re not entitled to their own science.

We now have to deal with the fallout from personal science. We’ve so blurred the lines between stories we tell ourselves and our perception of the outside world that it’s easy to be confused and easier still to confuse others if it advances your cause.

Consider the fact that the world is getting warmer. To be clear, everyone is entitled to have an opinion on what to do about global warming. The question I’m wondering about is whether we should solicit the opinions of the population as to whether or not it exists. We’re asking people to bring their knowledge of statistics, earth science and atmospherics to bear on analyzing data… Of course, most people don’t have that knowledge, or care that they don’t. If all that matters is belief, why should they?

Dylan told us that you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows… I’m not sure you need to take a poll either.

Before you send me an angry email, consider that the question of what we should do about the trend is a different discussion, one that should be had. The question of how (or if) we should take action is not what this post is about. The trend I’m concerned with is the notion that we’re entitled to get upset when the truth doesn’t match our point of view. Does the weather care what you think?

It’s been reported that director Ridley Scott has signed on to direct and produce a new installment of Blade Runner for Alcon Entertainment. Although nothing is set in stone, rumors are already swirling that Scott will use 3D to revisit the dystopian universe.

Loosely based on Phillip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Blade Runner remains a seminal film in the annals of science fiction and modern film noir. Scott’s original film, which was released in 1982, stars Harrison Ford as a man tasked with hunting down robot replicants in a dystopian Los Angeles set in 2019.

Deadline, which broke the story about Scott’s plans to revisit the film Thursday, notes that while the original film wasn’t a big hit at the box office, it has gained a loyal following amongst film historians and science fiction fans.

On Friday, The L.A. Times revealed more information about the project and how it came together. According to Alcon Entertainment’s Andrew Kosove, getting Scott on-board was a big part of the studio’s vision for the film. Speaking to the Times, Kosove said “I believe he sees an opportunity to create something that’s wholly original from the first Blade Runner. ”

Scott, who also directed 2000′s Gladiator, is no stranger to taking a new approach to existing content. The director is finishing work on Prometheus, a film that revisits the world inhabited by Scott’s 1979 class, Alien. Scott took a 3D approach with Prometheus, which Fox will release next summer. Although the studio says that Prometheus is its own title, it started life off as a prequel to the original Alien and reportedly still shares many similarities with the first film.

As for Blade Runner, it’s not clear if the film will be directly related to the original film or just inspired by it. Still, as Kosove told the Times, fans shouldn’t expect to see Harrison Ford return, telling the paper:

“In no way do I speak for Ridley Scott, but if you’re asking me will this movie have anything to do with Harrison Ford, the answer is no. This is a total reinvention, and in my mind that means doing everything fresh, including casting.”

Blade Runner fans will likely need to wait until 2014 to see the results in theaters. First, the film will need a screenwriter and a plan of attack.

If Scott does decide to shoot in 3D, as he did with Prometheus, it will be part of a growing trend of directors taking a 3D approach to either revive or enhance existing franchises.

James Cameron broke new ground with Avatar and is reportedly working on two follow-up films. He’s also working on a 3D version of Titanic. Rather than shooting a new version of the second-highest grossing film of all time, Cameron will be retroactively adding 3D to the 1997 film using post-production techniques.

Although American audiences have softened a bit on 3D films since Avatar broke box office records in 2009 and 2010, the technology is still driving the global film business.

Films like this summer’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 and Transformers: Dark of the Moon had tremendous overseas performances, driven in large part by 3D ticket sales.

In terms of cinematic history, Blade Runner, along with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, largely defined the science fiction film. Many modern tech films owe at least some of their existence to Blade Runner. Although we’re not convinced that the original film needs a remake or a prequel, we can’t help but love the idea of Scott revisiting that world, especially using modern technology and filmmaking techniques.

Let us know your thoughts about a Blade Runner revival in the comments.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 not only set a box office record for midnight showings, it absolutely shattered opening day box office records.

The film grossed a jaw-dropping $92.1 million in the U.S. on Friday. That’s not only the biggest opening-day draw of all time, it’s the highest-grossing single day in U.S. box office history.

Worldwide, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is also breaking box office records. The film has already grossed more than $157.5 million internationally, breaking opening-day records in the UK and Mexico.

Box Office Mojo puts the figures in perspective:

• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 took in 50% more on its first day than the previous Potter film, Deathly Hallows Part 1, back in November. At the time, the $61.7 million opening day was a franchise high. With 1.5x the gross, Deathly Hallows Part 2 clearly sets the record.
• Deathly Hallows Part 2 also outstripped past films in terms of estimated attendance.
• When you subtract the record braking $43.5 million midnight gross from the total day figures, you’re still left with $48.6 million for the rest of the day. This, in and of itself, beats the midnight free gross for every other film, with the exception of The Dark Knight (which took in $48.7 million sans midnight totals).
• The first day ticket receipts alone beat every other weekend opening for 2011, with the exception of Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

SEE ALSO: Harry Potter and the Social Media Surge

The eight and final Harry Potter film is expected to easily best The Dark Knight as the biggest opening weekend of all time. In 2008, The Dark Knight took in $158.4 million in its opening weekend.

Of course, a big factor in Deathly Hallows Part 2‘s boffo ticket sales are the fact that the film was released in 3D. Although 3D tickets only accounted for 45% of the box office gross (as compared to 60% for Transformers: Dark of the Moon), the number of 3D screens available is unmatched by any other new film. Moreover, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 opened in 4,375 locations and on 11,000 screens.

Warner Bros. embraced social media in a big way in the promotion of Deathly Hallows Part 2. In addition to running significant campaigns on Facebook and Twitter, the studio also reached out to fan sites and created YouTube videos to promote the film.

What did you think of Deathly Hallows Part 2? Let us know in the comments.

One of the best parts of summer is sitting outside on a warm night, glass of wine in hand (or bar of dark chocolate, whatever your pleasure), good company by your side and nothing but brilliant sparkly stars above you. If you’ve ever had the good fortune of spotting a shooting star, you’ve witnessed an amazing display of light and cosmic energy.

You always hear people talking about the relative insignificance of the human race in the grand scheme of the universe. That feeling is never more reinforced than when you start to explore astronomy and what really lies beyond our galaxy.

Whether you’re a stargazer who can only point out the Big Dipper and Little Dipper, or whether you much prefer calling it Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, the following 10 mobile apps can help you in your stargazing pursuits.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, sololos

When you are truly living on the edge, walking on the moon, perhaps, or caught in the grip of extreme poverty–there’s no room at all for error. It’s a luxury you can’t afford.

For the rest of us, though, there’s a cushion. Being wrong isn’t fatal, it’s merely something we’d prefer to avoid. We have the privilage of being wrong. Not being wrong on purpose, of course, but wrong as a cost on the way to being right.

As you gain resources, the act of being wrong goes from being fatal to annoying to a precious opportunity, something that you’ve earned. You won’t advance your cause or discover new truths if you’re obsessed with being right all the time–and so the best way to compound your advantage and accomplish even more than you already have is to set out (with relish) to be as open to wrong as often as you can afford to be.

SpaceX is poised to take a giant leap with the biggest rocket since the Saturn V carried men to the moon, and it could blast off by early 2013.

Elon Musk’s private space startup announced Tuesday that the 22-story Falcon Heavy will carry more than 117,000 pounds into low Earth orbit, giving it twice the lift capability of the space shuttle or the Delta IV heavy rocket built by Boeing–Lockheed Martin. Musk says it’ll be far cheaper, too.

“It’s more capability than any vehicle in history apart from the Saturn V,” Musk told reporters. “It opens up a range of possibilities for government and commercial space missions that simply aren’t present with the current lifting capacity.”

Musk, the CEO of Space Exploration Technologies, says the first launch will happen soon after the Falcon Heavy arrives at the company’s launch complex at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, late next year.

He estimates launching the 227-foot-tall rocket at $80 to $125 million, less than one-third the cost of the Delta IV and roughly one-tenth that of the space shuttle. If SpaceX stays within that cost, the Falcon Heavy will deliver payloads at the $1,000-per-pound benchmark long sought by the space industry.

“It’s not so mythical anymore,” Musk told reporters in Washington, D.C. He believes SpaceX will find customers eager to use the rocket. Analysts say he may be right.

“SpaceX has established credibility in the commercial market and with NASA,” Tim Farrar, president of consulting and research firm Telecom, Media & Finance Associates, told the Los Angeles Times. “The Falcon Heavy is going to open more markets.”

The cost savings comes as budgets for NASA and the Pentagon face increasing pressure and the government increasingly looks to the private sector to assist its space programs. SpaceX already has contracts with NASA to use the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft to deliver cargo to the International Space Station as early as the end of this year.

It’s also another big step forward for Musk and SpaceX. The Falcon 9 became the first commercial vehicle to launch a spacecraft into orbit and have it return to Earth safely.

SpaceX also has contracts to deliver commercial satellites to orbit — including a $492 million deal with telecommunications firm Iridium Communications — but does not have any military contracts yet. So far, the military relies solely on United Launch Alliance, a collaboration between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

The relatively cheap cost of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy may help SpaceX break that monopoly. Musk has said the Air Force is interested in having SpaceX delivering payloads to orbit.

“There’s no point in matching the competition,” Musk said. “We want to steamroll them. We’re trying to make this a complete no-brainer.”

The Falcon Heavy will be used for cargo missions at first, but Musk said it is designed to meet NASA’s human-rating standards — opening the door to missions to the moon or even Mars.

It is also being designed with reliability in mind. The first stage consists of three nine-engine cores. They are the same cores used to power the Falcon 9. The 27 engines will provide 3.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, and the mission can continue even if multiple engines fail.

The Saturn V that delivered 12 men to the moon — and another 15 to lunar orbit — could carry 262,000 pounds to low Earth orbit. Musk noted a mission to the moon could be staged with a pair of Falcon Heavy launches.

After an initial launch at Vandenberg, SpaceX says the Falcon Heavy should make its first launches from Cape Canaveral in late 2013 or early 2014.

Images: SpaceX

That’s what most of us do. We present facts and proof and expect a rational consumer/voter/follower/peer to make an intelligent decision on what’s better.

That’s how science works. Thesis, test, evidence, conclusion. All testable and rational.

Here’s the conversation that needs to happen before we invest a lot of time in evidence-based marketing in the face of skepticism: “What evidence would you need to see in order to change your mind?”

If the honest answer is, “well, actually, there’s nothing you could show me that would change my mind,” you’ve just saved everyone a lot of time. Please don’t bother having endless fact-based discussions.

Apple tried to use evidence to persuade IT execs and big companies to adopt the Macs during the 80s. Ads and studies that proved the Mac was easier and cheaper to support. They failed. It was only the gentle persistence of storytelling and the elevation of evangelists that turned the tide.

What would you have to show someone who believes men never walked on the moon? What evidence would you have to proffer in order to change the mind of someone who is certain the Earth is only 5,000 years old? If they’re being truthful with you, there’s nothing they haven’t been exposed to that would do the trick. I was talking to someone who has a body of artistic work I respect a great deal. He explained to me his notion that the polio vaccine was a net negative, that it didn’t really work and that more people have been hurt by it than helped.

I tried evidence. I showed him detailed reports from the Gates Foundation and from the WHO and from other sources. No, he said, that’s all faked, promoted by the pharma business. There was no evidence that would change his mind.

Of course, evidence isn’t the only marketing tactic that is effective. In fact, it’s often not the best tactic. What would change his mind, what would change the mind of many people resistant to evidence is a series of eager testimonials from other tribe members who have changed their minds. When people who are respected in a social or professional circle clearly and loudly proclaim that they’ve changed their minds, a ripple effect starts. First, peer pressure tries to repress these flip-flopping outliers. But if they persist in their new mindset, over time others may come along. Soon, the majority flips. It’s not easy or fast, but it happens.

That’s why it’s hard to find people who believe the earth is flat. That’s why political parties change their stripes now and then. It wasn’t that the majority reviewed the facts and made a shift. It’s because people they respected sold them on a new faith, a new opinion.